HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPCAT REPORT IS INCOMPLETEPlanning Commission Members.,
I hope you will have time to read this letter before the Planning Commission meeting on
November 30th. Some sections simply summarize points we have made at previous meetings,
but there are several areas which address issues which have never been discussed before in
any meeting.
When the Land Conservation Act committee met back in March 2006, the committee
initially stated that the M & T Ranch should be allowed out of their Williamson Act contract.
But at their next meeting in April, after reading my letter. to them and discussing the issues
raised in that letter, they did a complete about face and unanimously voted to recommend that
the M & T should. not be let out of their contract.
This letter contains information about the M & T mining project which you might not
have seen before— information that, I believe, could greatly influence your thinking about this
project.
The Environmental Impact Deport is incomplete. We have been told where some of
the insignificant things in the project would be located, but we don't know where any of the
most important°elements of the project would be. How could you or anyone else possibly
make an. intelligent decision about approving this project without such critical information?
In.CEQA Section 15147 — Technical. Detail — it says that, "The information contained in -
an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plat plans, diagrams, and similar
relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by
reviewing agencies ...". CEQA section 15151 — Standards for adequacy of an'EIR — states,
"An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers
with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences". With that in mind:.
How can you possibly make an intelligent decision about how much the bypass canal
and pit pond will affect our ability to farm if you don't have the foggiest notion how far
those things are from our property line? The amount of environmental impact the canal
and lake would have on our property is directly proportional to how far those two things
are from our property line. The closer -they are, the greater the impact. The FEIR still
shows the lake 25 feet from our property line and the bypass canal straddling the
property line: Would you actually approve a project showing that half of their bypass
channel would be out in my almond orchard? And if the FEIR map doesn't accurately
portray where the bypass.channel and lake would be located, then how can we possibly
know where will they be?
How can you come. to any conclusions about how much flooding the weir would cause if
you don't know how high it would be?
1 already pointed out at one of the Planning Commission meetings how poorly the EIR
had described the flooding problem in the.area. They plan to put the plant, conveyor,
andweir in the path of flood waters that, during a major storm, can be crossing River
Road a quarter of a mile wide and 12 or more feet deep.
CEQA regulations do not allow for the approval of an EIR that is incomplete, and this is far
from complete.
Another problem with this project is that 193 acres of prime farmland will
be destroyed forever. The MRCS and the Butte County assessor have. both said that
this land is prime farmland. We are already losing thousands of acres of agricultural land in
California each year to different forms of development, either houses, roads, or projects like
this. The real pressing public need is to preserve as much farmland as possible. Projects like
this should not be put on prime agricultural`larid such as this. There are hundreds of acres of
land in Glenn County, Tehama County, and Butte County where the gravel is right on the
surface and they wouldn't have to dig through 15 feet of prime topsoil just to get to the gravel
like they would in this project.
The General Plan says, "Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of
building materials and other valuable mineral resources". It goes on to say, "Encourage the
reclamation of land subject to mineral extraction." Would leaving a 70 -foot hole in the ground
with a mosquito -invested swamp along the edges be in compliance with the reclamation
standards as envisioned by the writers of the General Plan? _
So what does the General Plan have to say about the conversion of ag land? The
Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan says, "Provide a definitive purpose
section for the. agricultural zones and a list of agricultural uses, including, but not limited to crop
production, orchards, aquaculture, animal husbandry, and agricultural industries, and the like,
which preserve, promote, and support agricultural areas" (pg. AE -14). The General Plan
seems to be saying that in an agricultural area like this one, the only acceptable alternate land
uses are those that promote agriculture, which the gravel pit lake would not. (Agricultural
Element of the General -Plan is in the appendix.)
When I read the General Plan, there didn't seem to be any exceptions to the list of
alternate land uses listed above. So what else does the General Plan Agricultural Element
have to say about agriculture in Butte_County?
(1) "The County is committed to protecting and maintaining agriculture as a continuing
major part of the local economy and way of life." (AE —1)
(2) "To protect the natural resources that sustain agriculture in Butte County." (AE -1) .1
assume farmland would be the natural resource that the County is trying to protect
here in the Agricultural Element of the General Plan.
(3) "Allowing a wide range of additional land uses in agricultural areas create conflicts
for farmers and ranchers. Some uses, such as water-ski lakes....can diminish
productive agricultural operations". (AE -5) How would this lake be any -different than
a water ski lake?
(4) "Conversion of quality agricultural land to non-agricultural -uses has other significant
adverse effects. One of these is simply the physical loss of productive land to uses
that could be located on non-agricultural land". (AE -5) We have repeatedly said
that operations like this should be put in the foothills or in areas where the gravel is
right on the surface, not where you have to dig through 15 feet of prime -farmland to
get to the gravel.
Nothing in the General Plan seems to allow for a project's approval on farmland in the
County other than to return it to an agriculture use or to approve some use that would
preserve, promote, and support agriculture. So it's hard to understand how anyone can read
the General Plan and come to the conclusion that ruining good farmland is in accordance with
the Butte County General.
The next problem is that this project would severely impact our ability to
farm almonds next to the project site. According to the latestM & T Chico Ranch Mine
reclamation map, Baldwin Construction is proposing to put the gravel pit lake 25 feet from our
property line. Then the FEIR shoves half of the bypass channel on the M & T side of the
property line and half on our side.
There is a lot of concern in California right now about pesticides getting into rivers and
streams, and the State has mandated that this situation be studied by different -water quality
coalitions set up around California. At the present time we are not allowed to spray dormant
spray within 100 feet of irrigation ditches, drainage canals, or water bodies that may drain into
a river or tributary (see highlighted areas. California Dept. of Pesticide bulletin in the appendix).
In the regulations it doesn't even say that there has to be water in the drainage ditch, or in this
case bypass channel, for this restriction to apply. All it says is that you cannot spray within 100
feet of a drainage ditch. And, as I said, the gravel pit lake and the bypass channel would both
be well within 100 feet of our property line in an area which is in a flood plain. Every five years
or so we have substantial flooding in this area — flooding which would definitely be of sufficient
magnitude to cause the flood waters to pour into the gravel pit lake and wash any sprays that
have accumulated there'out of the lake and into the streams.
Dormant spray is used to control scale, mites, and other insect pests in almonds, and if
we were not allowed to spray the first five or six rows of trees which would be within this 100'
area next to the M & T property line that could cause all sorts of problems. Because of the
increasing concern over pesticides and chemicals getting into the water supply, I suspect that
over time regulations might be,put in place which would ban other chemicals (besides dormant
sprays) -from being used within a certain distance of waterways and that distance could easily
be much more than the current 100 feet in the future. Would allowing this project to go forward
result in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use? Over time it certainly appears that
it would, or it would at least seriously impair our ability to farm almonds along the M & T.,
property line. And how are you going to know if this could be a concern or not if you don't
even know where the bypass channel and lake will be in relation to the property? In a letter to
the Department of Development Services dated October 22, 2003 the Department of
Conservation said, "A reclamation plan cannot be approved prior to the Department's review of
a substantially complete reclamation plan for the project. Attaching conditions to the project
approval that would require the reclamation plan to be completed at a later time and, at the
same time, approving and incomplete reclamation plan is inconsistent with the required
Department review of a reclamation plan prior to its approval. If you look at the large map of
the project it say, "Details of the weir and bypass channel designs in progress". According to
the Department of Conservation this is not acceptable. I didn't even know until this week that
there is a second bypass channel planned for the east side of the project site. (DEIR 4.4-7a)
This bypass channel has never been on any map and they do not plan to do any design work
on it until after the project is approved. (NorthStar Engineering letter dated October 19, 2005)
Next I would like to examine if there is indeed a gravel shortage in Butte County.
In the M & T Ranch DEIR dated October 2003 current Butte County aggregate production
figures are given. On'page 4.0-20 it says that there are 54 million tons .of permitted aggregate
available in Butte County and that in the next 50 years we will need 127 million tons of
aggregate. If we look only at these figures it would certainly seem that we have a 73 million
ton shortage of gravel in Butte County. The person who did the .gravel availability study for the
'EIR got a lot of his data and other information from the Department of Conservation's
Aggregate Availability in California Study by Susan Kohler that was in the agenda materials for
the February 21 st meeting of the Land Conservation Act committee., According to this report,
the statewide average of aggregate used in California was seven tons per person, and the
person doing the gravel availability study for the EIR used this number to figure the yearly and
50 -year aggregate needs for'Butte County. He also quoted from this same study several other
times. He seems to have done an accurate job of determining that Butte County will need 127 .
million tons of gravel in the next 50 years and that the total permitted reserves for the County is
54 million. It was at this point, though, that he made one huge mistake in determining whether
or not Butte County actually has a gravel shortage.
The Department of Conservation's Aggregate Availability in California Study says, "The
per capita consumption model has proven to be effective for prediction of aggregate demands
in the major metropolitan areas.......". "However, the model may not work well in county
aggregate studies where the boundaries have little correlation to the aggregate market area
and in P -C (Production -Consumption) regions that import or export a large percentage of
aggregate. In such cases, projections were based on a modified per capita consumption
model. For example, if a P -C region imports 30% of its aggregate, the total 50 -year projected
aggregate demand for the P -C region maybe decreased. by 30%."(pg. 5) (This page of her
report is included in the appendix.)
What they are talking about here is exactly what we have in Butte County. Much of the
gravel used in Butte County comes from outside the County,- so to do an accurate aggregate
availability study you would need to take into consideration all the gravel we get from other
counties — not just the gravel located in Butte County. One word from the quote in the
previous paragraph bothered me. It says the demand "may" be decreased. I wondered what
Ms. Kohler meant by this. Should a person doing an aggregate availability report lower the 50 -
year demand by the percentage of gravel being imported or did the word "may" mean that this
was optional, so I decided to call Ms. Kohler and ask her. She said when she originally wrote
that statement she used the word "should, but she said that for legal reasons when someone
else working for the State edited her study the word "should" was changed to "may". She said
in all of the 32 areas they studied in this report if gravel was imported or.exported, then the 50 -
year demand figures were either raised or lowered accordingly. The purpose of doing an
agggregate availability study is not to find out how much gravel is available in the County but to
find out how much gravel is available to the County. The writer of the Environmental Impact
.Report did not take into consideration any of the gravel being imported into Butte County from
other counties, and this oversight led to his incorrect conclusion that we have a gravel
shortage in Butte County. According to Ms. Kohler, if gravel is being imported then the 50 -year
demand figures should be lowered, which was not done in the EIR report regarding gravel
availability.
So just how much gravel is imported into Butte County? In the Glenn County Resource
Report (1997) the State Division of Mines and Geology states that 55% of the aggregate mined
in Glenn County is exported to Butte County. Now the problem was figuring out how, much
gravel is produced in Glenn County in a year. Each year in Glenn County the gravel
companies are charged a per ton fee by the County based on how many tons of gravel they
produce each year. I called the Glenn County Assessor's office and talked to Mardy Thomas,
and he told me he didn't have the figures for 2005 but in 2004 the gravel companies produced
1,252,000 tons. If the 55% figure quoted above is about right that would be about 688,600
tons of gravel coming from Glenn County into Butte County each year.
Next I tried to figure out how much gravel was coming from Tehama County. Just about
10 miles north of Chico right next to Highway 99 there are two gravel pits within a few miles of
each other. Both are just over the Butte -Tehama county line. , I asked the owner of the 7-11
Pine Creek Gravel Pit how much gravel he thought came from his gravel pit into Butte County
last year and he said about 250,000 tons. Next I called the Deer Greek Gravel Pit and they
told me they ship about 40,000 tons a year into Butte County. Then I called several gravel
operations in Yuba County but they didn't think that very much of their gravel went to Butte
County. This seemed to concur with the Aggregate Availability Study done for Yuba City -
Marysville area in which they said that only 1.8% of the gravel mined there ends up in Butte
County.
So it appears that there is about 978,600 tons of gravel being imported each year into
Butte County from Tehama and Glenn Counties (688,600 from Glenn County and 290,000
from Tehama County). According to the M & T Ranch FEIR (October 2003- pg. 4.0-18) the
estimated use for Butte County for 2005 should have been about T, 560, 000 tons. We know
that this figure is arrived at by multiplying the number of people in Butte County by 7 tons,
which is the average amount of aggregate. used by everyone in California each year. As I read
the aggregate availability studies for surrounding counties, I noticed that the amount of
aggregate used in a county can vary dramatically from one year to another since housing
booms or major road projects can cause the actual yearly amounts to fluctuate wildly.
However, this figure of 1,560,000 tons should fairly well approximate the average usage in the
County over a period of several years.
When we subtract the two numbers (1,560,000 - 978,600) we find that in an average
year Butte County probably produced about 581,400_tons-of gravel, meaning that the County
actually imported more gravel than we produced in the County.. If we divide 581,400 tons by
1,560,000 tons we get a figure of 37%. This means that in an average year about 37% of the
gravel used in Butte County is produced within the County. We can then multiply the 50 -year
aggregate need for the County (127,682,670 million tons as found in the FEIR on pg.4.0-2) by
37% and we will come up. with the actual 50 -year aggregate needs of the County, which would
be 47,242,587 million tons. If you compare this to the 54,437,000 tons presently permitted in
Butte County, then we already have more tons of aggregate permitted than we will need for the
next 50 years.
Then I, decided to find out if there were any more gravel pits that are close to being
permitted in the County at this time. I was told. that the Cherokee Mine is probably within a
year of being permitted and they estimate that they will have 100 million tons of sand and
gravel and 40 million tons of hard. rock. Also the Green Rock — Marietta mine may be close to
getting a permit for an addition 60 million tons of aggregate. If both of these get permitted, we
would have about 254 million tons of gravel permitted in the County which would be more than
5 times as much gravel as we will need in the next 50 years.
Do we have a gravel shortage in the County? It sure doesn't look like it, especially if
either or both of these mines get permitted. In fact, if both of these mines get permitted we
would have twice as much gravel permitted as we would need in the County over the next 50
years_— even if you don't include all the gravel coming in from outside the County!
There's. another way to tell if we have a shortage of gravel in the County. According to
Susan Kohler's Aggregate Availability in California Study, the average cost of aggregate in
California is between $8 and $10 per ton (pg. 12). In areas such as the North San Francisco
Bay Region where gravel is in short supply the cost is $20. per ton. The amount charged in
anyone region is a direct result of the. law of supply and demand. If there is more gravel than
there .is demand, the cost of gravel is low and the opposite is true as seen in the Bay area. In
Butte County gravel is selling for around $5.30 per ton (pg. 14 Mineral Land Classification 'of
the M & T Ranch - 2000), which is well below the State average and is probably a,pretty good
indication that we do not have a supply shortage in the area.
Another thing Susan Kohler said in her gravel availability: study is that the supply of
gravel in your area can be depleted very quickly if the gravel in surrounding counties were to
run out. So is this something Butte County should be concerned about? According to Ms.
Kohler's study, the Yuba City -Marysville area has permitted aggregate reserves of 2,000
million tons (pg. 8): This is 34 times as much as we would need in Butte County for the next
50 years and 66 times as much as Yuba County will need in the next 50 years. In the
Department of Conservation's Report on Concrete -grade Aggregate in Glenn County it was
established that a large portion of the land area of Glenn County contains aggregate resources
of regional significance with,a potential supply of 1,031 million tons of aggregate which is about'
17 times the total we will need in Butte County for the next 50 years.: The Department of
Conservation's Aggregate Availability study for Tehama County has identified reserves of
1,532 million tons of concrete grade aggregate. I say all of this just to say that there is no
chance anytime soon that any of the counties around us are going to be running out of gravel,
and these surrounding counties should be able to keep supplying us with, a continuous stream
of gravel well into the foreseeable future. You might ask if it is really economical to ship gravel
from Glenn County? Well, if it isn't economical there sure is a lot of gravel coming in. As a
matter of fact, it was from their Stony Creek pit in Glenn County that Baldwin has gotten most
of their gravel for many years. Also the two gravel pits I mentioned which are in Tehama
County are only about 10 miles north of .Chico. on Highway 99, and this is well within the 30 -
mile range that they say gravel has'to be in order to be economical.
Where is the pressing public need? If the average -gravel needs of the County are
computed correctly and if these two additional gravel pits get permitted we can see that there
is already more than enough gravel in Butte County to last us for the next 200 years.
In order to assess whether there's a public need for this project, it is important to. look at
the whole picture, not just one little piece of the puzzle. As far as the public is concerned, is
this project going to create more problems than it cures?
.One very important issue concerning public safety deals with mosquitoes and the
potentially fatal diseases that they may carry. Baldwin would need to remove 15 feet of
topsoil to get to the gravel strata they want to mine, and they had. to figure out what to do with
all this. dirt so they decided to push it along the edges of the pit to form a 50 -foot wide shelf
around the lake, and they are calling this shelf a wetland area. The water table in this area
usually varies from about seven to 11 feet throughout the year. They plan to design this shelf
so that as the water table goes up and down a portion of shelf would be at the edge of the lake
at all times and they say that native grasses and trees would grow in this'area. The problem is
that this would provide a perfect habitat for mosquitoes, and even if the Butte County Mosquito
and Vector Control did put mosquito fish into the lake, the fish wouldn't be able to.get to the
mosquitoes because of the dense vegetation. For the first few years the County might be able
to spray repeatedly to keep the mosquito population. down, but they could only do this for a
while because once the willows, cottonwoods, and other trees started growing along the edges
they probably wouldn't be able to get close enough to spray. The mosquito abatement people
wrote a letter to the Planning Department explaining that the design of the shelf was very
problematic because it would actually encourage a population of the types of mosquitoes that
most often cause West Nile Virus and Encephalitis. (Letter in appendix)
Another concern is the amount of damage the 33,000 trucks pulling out of this
project each year would do to area roads. River Road and Chico River Road are already
torn up and if this project is approved there could be millions of dollars of damage done to area
roads. For years I've heard that Chico River Road and River Road were not built to handle this
kind of truck traffic but I didn't know if this was true or not, so in order to find this out I went to
the Butte County Department of Public Works and talked to two gentlemen there, Jack Warson
and Stu Edell. They told me that when River Road and Chico River Roads were being built
that they usually used eight inches of base and two inches of asphalt in the construction of the
roads. They said,. though, that the roads were built in about ten sections and that it would take
a while to -look all this -up, so I asked them if they could look up just a couple of sections to see
what was used. They looked up three sections that they felt would be representative of the
area (the print-outs for these areas are in the.appendix in the back of this report) and this is
what they found. On either side of the bridge over the M & T — Parrott Canal on Chico River
Road they used 10 inches of base and 2 inches of asphalt. This may be one of the newest
sections of that road and it was probably replaced when this bridge was rebuilt. Then they
checked another section of Chico River Road just past the city limits of Chico. This was built
with 8 inches of base and 2 inches of asphalt., The last section they looked up was a section of
River Road just past Chico River Road, and on this section they only used 4 inches of base
and 2 inches of asphalt. So I asked them if they thought these roads could withstand a lot of
heavy truck traffic and they just shrugged their.shoulders and didn't seem to want to commit
themselves on this one. They did say; though, that one section of River Road about a mile .
northeast of the proposed processing area was already starting to fall apart. So I asked them
if these roads did get to the. point where they needed to. be rebuilt just how much base and
asphalt they would use to rebuild them, knowing that there might be a lot of truck traffic out on
these roads. They said if these roads fell apart they would use 14 inches of road base and 5
inches of asphalt to rebuild them. As you can see there is quite a difference between how
these roads were built years ago and what would be needed today to build these roads strong
enough to withstand this much heavy truck traffic. They also said that they would put wider
shoulders on the road. I asked how much it would cost to rebuild these roads and they said
about $400,000 per mile. There are approximately 10 miles of road from Chico to Ord Ferry
Road and if they had to be replaced it would cost the County about $4,000,000. Would heavy
truck traffic cause these roads to fall apart? It seems very likely. It doesn't sound like these
roads have nearly enough base or asphalt to stand up to the pounding they would get from
33,000 gravel trucks a year. Does the County want to be stuck with the cost of rebuilding
these roads? Four million dollars is a.lot of money, and all that Baldwin would be contributing
towards the road maintenance for all the roads they would be using in the County is about
$23,000 a year for 10 years or a total of about $230,000 (FEIR pg. 4.0-25). If these trucks do
tear up the roads, roads which were clearly not constructed to handle this kind of truck traffic,
then the County would be stuck paying the other $3,770,000 needed to fix them, and this
amount is only for one section of the roads. I didn't even ask about Ord Ferry Road or any of
the other roads these trucks would busing.
I am including an article. in the appendix from the Chico News and Review dated April
13, 2000 in which Mike Crump tells how in just a couple months' time heavy gravel trucks
going over County roads that weren't built to handle them caused over $600,000 in damages
to those roads during two different winters. Apparently in the wintertime the ground under
some low-lying roads can become saturated with water and cause the roads to break down
more quickly. In the vicinity of the proposed processing plant, even during a minor flood,
several miles of the roads can be covered or almost covered with water. This means that
allowing a plant like.this to be built in a flood plain would only accelerate the destruction of
these roads. In the News and Review article, Mike Crump said the $600,000 it was going to
cost to fix these roads out around the town of Nord was going to be a huge hit to the County
coffers, but that amount would pale in comparison to the almost $4,000,000 the County would.
have to spend to fix roads damaged by Baldwin's gravel trucks.
It's also important to think about all the traffic problems this project would cause.
By Baldwin's own estimates 85% of the 33,000 trucks leaving this plant -will be going right
through the middle of Chico in order to get to where they need to go. (In the appendix I have
included a map of the proposed routes these trucks will take.) If you count the trucks leaving:'
as well as the trucks returning to the plant, there would be about 59,400 trucks going right
through the middle of Chico each year. Most of these trucks would come into Chico on West
5th Street and from there they would fan out to West 8th and West 9th Streets or Nord Avenue —
city streets which are currently heavily congested. The mayor.of Chico has already written to
the Planning Department saying that he's opposed to this project because of traffic concerns,
and the Durham School Board wrote a similar letter voicing their opposition to this project.
(Letters included in appendix)
In a December 3 2003 letter the Highway Patrol addressed another public safety
concern. They stated that because of how narrow both River Road and Chico River Road are
that "the additional truck traffic would create an unacceptable safety hazard for the motoring
public..." and to "slow moving agricultural equipment and bicyclists". They said that the design
of River Road "makes it difficult for commercial vehicles to safely and legally negotiate". They
also said that having this many trucks going into and out of the Skyway asphalt plant would
"create an unacceptable safety hazard" and would "increase the probability for a high speed
collision 'to occur". (Highway Patrol letter is in the appendix)
Baldwin admits that there would be one truck approximately every four minutes going
up and down West 5th Street, a very narrow street which is used by hundreds of college
students and kids from Rosedale School as they make their way to and from school each day.
Rosedale School is just three blocks north of West 5th and many children attending this school
have to cross it to get to school each day. This seems like -an unacceptable risk.` In the Chico
News and Review article I mentioned earlier, Mike Crump said that having 109 trucks a day
going within a block of the Nord School for just a few months caused him to have deep
concerns for the safety of the students on foot, or using bicycles or vehicles to get to school.
With the M & T's project"there would be 120 trucks a day going up and down.West 5th Street
for 30 years. This is a huge reason for public concern, not just to the elementary school
children but also for college kids and everyone else using this road.,
Compare this scenario to the one of having gravel pits up in the foothills like the two on
Highway 99 just. north of Chico. Trucks pulling out of these locations would cause only a small
fraction.of the traffic problems that the Baldwin site would cause. When these trucks need to
go somewhere they won't have to use city streets to get to the freeway. They would be able to
get directly onto the freeway and use designated truck routes to get to most of their
destinations. Also, none of Butte_ County's tax revenues would be used t6repair Hwy. 99
any damage the trucks coming from these gravel pits might do would be paid for by the State.
We wouldn't have to spend millions of County tax dollars to repair the rural roads because, for
the most part, these trucks wouldn't need to use those roads.
Wally Roney, owner of Pine Creek Gravel plant north of Chico, told me that for over 10
years he's been trying to get another 800 acres .permitted to mine., but with no success. This
800 -acre site is adjacent to the Pink Creek plant and is in Butte County right on Hwy. 99: -
Where would you rather see a gravel pit located? Which would be a better option for Butte
County? To have:
® a gravel pit located on prime land, which will be ruined when they are done, and where
the County will need to spend $4,000,000 to repair the roads?
• or one'on land that's not prime, which will be returned to grazing -land when they are
done mining, and where the County probably won't have to spend a dime on road
repairs?
I
Obviously, this decision should be based completely on what is best for Butte County —
not what's best for Baldwin. If the County is convinced that we do need another gravel pit it
just makes sense to locate it where prime farmland wouldn't be ruined and where the cost.of
repairing damaged roads wouldn't create such an enormous'financial hardship for'the County.
It's obvious that there is not a pressing public need to allow this project to go forward
either in the next 10 years or for the next 50 years, for that matter. In fact, when you weigh all
the pros and cons of this project, not only is there clearly no pressing public need for -this
project, the real pressing public -need is to reject this project, especially when you realize that a
gravel shortage in Butte County simply does not exist.
The Williamson Act and the. Agricultural Element of the General Plan were adopted with
the specific intent of conserving prime farmland. If Baldwin is allowed to mine on land
designated as prime then.not only would 193 acres of ag land be lost forever, but it could open
the door for many other gravel companies to want to have similar projects approved all over
the County. Baldwin would need to remove 15 -feet of topsoil to mine the gravel on the M & T
Ranch. Any gravel company that's willing to remove that much topsoil could probably find
gravel stratas similar to this in many of the orchards and fields all over the area near the river.
Other companies might say, "If Baldwin was allowed to put a mine in the middle of some the
best ag land in the County — land that was classified as prime farmland — then I should be able
to put a gravel pit just about anywhere in the County I want". The approval of this project could
set a precedent and send a message that there isn't anyplace in the County that would be off
limits to future gravel mining operations no matter how prime the soils were: Permitting this
project could eventually lead to thousands of acres of farmland being destroyed in the future.. -
There are hundreds of people in the Durham -Chico area who have written or voiced
their opposition to the proposed M & T gravel mine. The Planning Department has probably
received as many letters opposing this project as just about any other on record. In the front of
the DEIR 12 pages of businesses and individuals are listed who have written to the County
about this project, and almost all them were in opposition to it. And what did -most people
object to?- Their three main concerns were the destruction of prime farmland, traffic, and public
safety. The M & T's gravel mining project would be a disaster for Chico and Durham..
There are manv reasons why this proiect should not be approved. 'Because
(1) There is no gravel shortage and therefore no pressing public need.
(2) This project is diametrically opposed to everything the General Plan says
about projects which are approved for prime ag land in Butte County.
(3) The gravel pit lake and bypass channel would destroy our ability to farm
almonds along the M & T property line.
(4) Contaminants in the gravel pit lake could contaminate the aquifer.
(5) There is plenty of land in. Glenn and Tehama Counties as well as in Butte
County that would be much more suitable for operations like this.
(6) The negatives far outweigh the positives. The negatives being too much
traffic right through Chico and Durham; danger to school children in Durham
and Chico; road repair costs bankrupting the County, dangerous conditions
on area roads for cars, bicycles, and farm equipment, the expense of
continual spraying for mosquitoes and the diseases they carry; and the
destruction of prime farmland
Just as the Land Conservation Act committee, in essence, voted against this project I
would like to ask you to do the same.
Thank you,
Ron Jones
3203 Hudson Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
345-4286
Appendix
Agricultural Element pages from the County General Plan
Pesticide — Dormant Spray Bulletin
Page 5 from the Department of Conservation Gravel Availability report
Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District'letter
Three "As-Builts" for sections of Chico River and River Road
Mike Crump's Chico News and Review article
Map showing routes gravel trucks will be using
Mayor Scott Gruendl's Letter
Durham Unified School District Letter
Highway Patrol letter _.
r,
WHAT•N0U NElED TO'KNOW _.
n
U11
o°U
° 4 e° ° � I
t ,•
Protectona� dw�73 ff I-ro M.!Y.
doirmant spiraw Irts"Odu's.8
Pesticide applications.to orchard crops during two watersheds. State and federal laws
winter, when the trees are dormant, kill prohibit discharge of substances that make
overwintering arthropod pests'(suth as scales our rivers toxic to agiiatic life.
and mites) and diseases. The treatment is The detections.led the Central Valley Regional • '
more. effective because there are no leaves on Water Quality Control Board to declare this
the trees and later helps to. keep these r ,
destructive pests under control through the Problem a violation of its Basin Plan water
quality standard for toxicity. In 1998, the
growing season.
State placed the two rivers and the associated'
But the organophosphate (OP) pesticides Delta/Estuary on the Clean Water Act -303(d) ,
(such as diazinon, methidathion and chlorpy- i list of impaired waterways, partly because of
rifos) used as dormant sprays can cause elevated OP levels originating from dormant
problems when drift occurs, or when rain spray runoff or drift.,These listings require
washes residues into Central Valley rivers and ' that specific measures be taken to eliminate
streams. The Department of Pesticide haimful residues in the watersheds. To do this
Regulations (DPR) Dormant Spray Water . requires that we understand the specific'
Quality Initiative, which began in 1996, works _ agricultural production and
that contrib= .
to prevent aquatic toxicity from pesticide , ute to the problem, how pesticides are moving '
residues in the Sacramento and San Joaquin into waterways, and alternative practices that
Rivers. DPR's efforts to reduce problems caused will reduce pesticide runoff and drift to a.level
by dormant sprays will now be augmented by that eliminates toxicity in -surface water.'
use restrictions:
Working toward a solution
About the Problem : Under a 1996 settlement agreement between "
DPR scientists analyzed data from 22 surface the Sacramento Valley Toxics Campaign and •
water studies conducted between 1991 and , the State and Central Valley Water Boards, DPR_
2001 by the Department, other government agreed to iesolve water quality problems
agencies, and private companies. We found. caused by dormant sprays. Rather,than
that dormant spray' insecticides were ire- immediately' move to mandatory restrictions„ ` s
quently detected in the watersheds of the DPR launched a five-year plan working with ,
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, particu- ` _ - growers to see if voluntary practices could be ,
laxly in tributaries: The highest detections developed and adopted to reduce the move --
were of diazinon, and coincided with flooding went of these pesticides to'surface waters.
of orchards by winter rains. Small aquatic test DPR agreed to periodically evaluate the .
invertebrates are killed when exposed for`even .µ, success of these voluntary Wforts toward'
short periods to the OP levels'detected in the achieving water, quality^.compliance.
�. . x
•,,Yff�,,� rti
CK"
�
Ww ri
WHAT•N0U NElED TO'KNOW _.
n
U11
o°U
° 4 e° ° � I
t ,•
Protectona� dw�73 ff I-ro M.!Y.
doirmant spiraw Irts"Odu's.8
Pesticide applications.to orchard crops during two watersheds. State and federal laws
winter, when the trees are dormant, kill prohibit discharge of substances that make
overwintering arthropod pests'(suth as scales our rivers toxic to agiiatic life.
and mites) and diseases. The treatment is The detections.led the Central Valley Regional • '
more. effective because there are no leaves on Water Quality Control Board to declare this
the trees and later helps to. keep these r ,
destructive pests under control through the Problem a violation of its Basin Plan water
quality standard for toxicity. In 1998, the
growing season.
State placed the two rivers and the associated'
But the organophosphate (OP) pesticides Delta/Estuary on the Clean Water Act -303(d) ,
(such as diazinon, methidathion and chlorpy- i list of impaired waterways, partly because of
rifos) used as dormant sprays can cause elevated OP levels originating from dormant
problems when drift occurs, or when rain spray runoff or drift.,These listings require
washes residues into Central Valley rivers and ' that specific measures be taken to eliminate
streams. The Department of Pesticide haimful residues in the watersheds. To do this
Regulations (DPR) Dormant Spray Water . requires that we understand the specific'
Quality Initiative, which began in 1996, works _ agricultural production and
that contrib= .
to prevent aquatic toxicity from pesticide , ute to the problem, how pesticides are moving '
residues in the Sacramento and San Joaquin into waterways, and alternative practices that
Rivers. DPR's efforts to reduce problems caused will reduce pesticide runoff and drift to a.level
by dormant sprays will now be augmented by that eliminates toxicity in -surface water.'
use restrictions:
Working toward a solution
About the Problem : Under a 1996 settlement agreement between "
DPR scientists analyzed data from 22 surface the Sacramento Valley Toxics Campaign and •
water studies conducted between 1991 and , the State and Central Valley Water Boards, DPR_
2001 by the Department, other government agreed to iesolve water quality problems
agencies, and private companies. We found. caused by dormant sprays. Rather,than
that dormant spray' insecticides were ire- immediately' move to mandatory restrictions„ ` s
quently detected in the watersheds of the DPR launched a five-year plan working with ,
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, particu- ` _ - growers to see if voluntary practices could be ,
laxly in tributaries: The highest detections developed and adopted to reduce the move --
were of diazinon, and coincided with flooding went of these pesticides to'surface waters.
of orchards by winter rains. Small aquatic test DPR agreed to periodically evaluate the .
invertebrates are killed when exposed for`even .µ, success of these voluntary Wforts toward'
short periods to the OP levels'detected in the achieving water, quality^.compliance.
�. . x
During that time, DPR worked with commodity
Diazinon residues
groups, °pesticide registrants, growers,
DPR's review of monitoring data indicated that
agricultuial advisors, County Agricultural
diazinon residues were particularly problem -
Commissioners, Resource Conservation
atic and must be reduced to meet water
Districts and others. The Department awarded'
quality standards. When data indicate an
$1.2 million in grants to develop pest
unacceptable risk to human health or the •
management practices that could reduce"*
environment, regulations require DPR to
discharges of dormant sprays into surface `'''
initiate a formal reevaluation of a product's
water. Registrants also did outreach to raise
• registration.
grower awareness and suggest "best manage--
f
In February"2003, the Department placed
ment practices" to use when applying
- - - -
pesticides. DPR also conducted or funded $2.6 '
drazmon dormant spray products into ;
_
million in water monitoring studies between
reevaluation: DPR has'duected the registrants
of this OP to conduct studies that will identify
..
1991 and 2001. '
the processes by which dormant spray • :.
"
Under the settlement agreement, if improve-
diazinon products are contributing to con-
ments were not made in water quality, DPR
tamination of rivers and streams. The .
DPR will continue to ,
would initiate regulatory measures. A DPR
registrants must also identify mitigation
analysis of monitoring done between 1991
strategies that will reduce or eliminate
monitor progress
and 2001 found little progress in reducing
diazinon residues in surface water. The
aquatic toxicity. (This report, EH -01-01, is onmeasures
must be feasible and supported by
toward eliminating
DPR's Web site, www.cdpLca.gov, click on °
scientifically valid. studies. If no solution can.
problems in surface
! "Programs and Services," "Dormant Spray
' be found, the Department can ban'sales and
Water Quality Initiative," then "Reports.")
-use of dormant spray diazinon products. _
,
water from dormant
_
-
' VVI al's next?
Monitoring compliance
spray residues. Should
P
' z % r,+ e �s•V! r 5
' Unfortunately-�although progress,Awas�made, ,-'
-
DPR will periodically evaluate water quality'
additional measures be
1 h �`i�k.r3t "ar
t �4rsa,.
, `voluntary,measnres were notysuffiaento
data to determine prop ess;toward eliminating .,
'
y't`. , � r �:D`Bq ,F rz*• zY+.�f , -N Zc �csx �
resolve the problems Asia,result2 --DPR plans.`
- 1
toxicityproblems in surface water from
-needed, the Department
mandatory conYtrols to reduce donnantapray
dormant spray pesticides: Should additional
�r
resrdues to acceptable levels. DPR is develop- ,
steps need to be taken,athe Department has a
- has a wide range of
+
ing regulations to require buffer, zones (where
wide range of regulatory options:
regulatory options,
dormant spray applications would be prohib-
Designate dormant sprays "restricted
'
--ted) around irrigation ditches, drainage
: materials." Under this option, permits
canals, or water bodies that. may drain into a
would be'required to use the pesticides,
`
river or tributary. This is intended to reduce , , ;
and local use restrictions imposed.
-
problems caused both by runoff and drift. As
,
an alternative to buffer zones, DPR will allow Request egistrants to amend pesticide
•
growers to implement best management
product labels to specify a variety of
practices.. Growers who believe buffer zone
mitigation•measures, For example, buffer,.
-
restrictions are not appropriate given their
zone requirements, the establishment of
' situation may develop alternative water •
vegetative}filter strips, contoured orchard '
quality management plans to address runoff
perimeters, or mig/load `containment pads:
and drift. For assistance on voluntary
Develop a licensing categoryfor commercial ,
b
conservation planning, you may wish to
t
applicators applying dormant spray
:..
contact the federal Natural Resources Conner- '
materials, and require training.
vation Service (NRCS) at (530) 79275600, or
get the number of your local NRCS'center at , <
Adopt additional regulations to mitigate
'
<www.nres,usda.gov>. • ,
_--adverse effects of dormant sprays.
y :r
For information on DPR's dormant spray
Suspend or cancel the registration (or,
initiative, contact Marshall Lee of DPWs
fl certain uses) of specific dormant spray
z
Environmental Monitoring Branch,'
'chemicals'; or products.
(916) 324-4269, e-mail <mlee@cdpzca.gov>.
}
i . . . . . . . . . . . .
DPR: A Department of the California
Environmental Protection Agency
DS March03 '
:r
■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture for Butte County represents the largest land use in terms of area It has been
the principal economic base and accounts for 20 percent of the County's workforce.
While the County has taken leadership to ensure agriculture's future, there are imreasing'
pressures on 'prime. agric4ttUmI areas ` for' conversion to incompatible uses: Land
divisions are gradually reducing the future security of those who want to continue to
commercially farm. It is apparent that more effective controls are now needed than those
contained in either the County General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Through preparation
of an Agricultural Element, and the adoption of fair but effective controls, agricultures
true importance to the County's future can be fully recognized and ensured. The County'*,"
is committed to -protecting,µand maintaining, agriculture as a continuing major"part of the
loca[;pccino'my"and' way; of wife. To that end, the Board of Supervisors in 1994 directed
the' preparation of a separate Agricultural Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Agricultural Element establishes policies designed to achieve four main purposes:
■ To preserve agricultural lands for. continued agdculture;uses
■ To strengthen and support the agricultural sector of the economy
■ To, protect the. natural resources' that. sustain agriculture in Butte
County ,.
■ To consolidate agricultural policies required in mandated general
plan elements into one document
This element outlines policies and programs that address issues identified by members
of the local farm community and professionals in the agricultural industry. Agricultural
policies and programs provide clear guidance for the public and decision -makers. The
Agricultural Element is the County's commitment to specific policies, programs, and
strategies to ensure continued agricultural productivity unhindered by development
pressures. This Element does not include the timber lands or issues related to the
timber industry; timber Is covered by other Elements of the General Plan.
Legislative Authority
Section 85303 of the Califomia Government Code (CGC) permits a general pian to:
"Include any other elements or address any other subject, which in the
judgment of the legislative body, relates to the physical development of the
jurisdiction.'
i
The elements required by state law, i.e. Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space, each
require discussion of agricultural issues. An Agricultural Element has been created to
recognize the importance of agriculture in the Comprehensive Plan and to stress the
Importance of agriculture to our local economy.
■ Barre COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE paw ■ EXHIBlr A - Adopfad May 9, 1995
AE- 1
■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■
Development pressure presents a challenge to agriculture in Butte County. Pressure for
housing developments for workers in Yuba City, Marysville, and Sacramento is starting
to appear in the southern portion of the County. Development pressures continue to
increase on the rural lands surrounding Chico, Oroville, Gridley, Biggs, and Durham.
General plan and zoning regulations in effect in 1994 allow new parcels to be subdivided
into parcels more conducive to non-agricultural than agricultural uses. As a result, the
larger agricultural land holdings are slowly being divided. This is a trend that perpetuates
itself. As properties break down to the point they are marginally sufficient for commercial
farming or ranching, the argument is made that they are now committed to rural
residential or urban uses and, therefore, should be allowed to be subdivided further. -
A critical consideration in the definition of agricultural viability is the scale or the size of an
individual operation.. There is no standard acreage that will automatically result in
economic success. An economically viable agricultural unit is dependent upon a myriad
of factors, such as soil type, water, type of crop, or the type of grazing. However, in terms
of commercial agriculture, the larger the parcel, the greater the opportunity is to take
advantage of economies of scale. The smaller the parcel, the greater the potential for
non-agricultural uses, ranchettes and increased conflicts with agricultural uses. it should
be noted however, that small scale agriculture is a Vaal part of the overall agricultural
economy of Butte County, and for many, is a desired lifestyle.
g 'a wide range of additiona
processing operations may also result in
operations.
uses in agricultural areas: create conflicts for:
s water'ski lakes, equestrian centers and some
,e agriculture, operations. Some agricultural
conflicts with adjoining farming and ranching
Conversion of ' quality agricultural_ land to. non agricultural.: uses has other significant
�.. ..j,.:.. _.. , ;�,� a..,. , r. .
adverse effects: One of these is simply the. physical loss of productive land to usesrthat,,
could:.be located';on"non-agnculhlral land."Secondly, owners of productive agricultural
land- adjace nt'to the path of urban development begin to feel that their agricultural options
are limited. Agricultural land owners in these situations have found their competitiveness
is affected- by the encroachment 'of urban uses. Urban. development adjacent to
agricultural land also puts an inflated value on the agricultural land so that it may appear
uneconomical to continue to farm it This situation is compounded when the farmer or
rancher faces major reinvestment decisions such as replacing an orchard ' where the
return on investment may be years in the future.
Economic capability is subject not only to the uncertainties of climatic conditions but also
to such influences as interest rates, global markets, energy costs, and the general
economy. Typically, during periods when there is a downturn in the profitability of
agriculture, there is increased pressure to convert agricultural land to more profitable
a BUTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSNE PLAN ■ EMISIT A - Adopted May 9, 1995
■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT a
Issue: Too many unrelated uses allowed in current agricultural zones result in land use
conflicts with existingagricultural operations.
Goal 3
Support the management of agricultural lands in an efficient, economical manner, with
minimal conflict from non-agricultural uses.
Policies -
3.1 Apply the County's Right to Farm Ordinance to all non-agricultural land use
approvals, including budding permits, within or adjacent to designated agricultural
areas.
3.2 Ing order to preserve the maximum amount of land for commercial a ricultura
`.7�tkr
Ordinance, inducting, but not limitedto, water ski lakes, riding stables, golf
courses, residential subdivisions, and €ndustnat andcommerc�a[` uses not`d'irectly
related to agncu(ture. on agncu!Wral'tands Public uses, including but not limited
to, sewer treatment plants, drainage faciCcties, and energy generating facilities shall
be permitted subject to a Use Permit: Such faciftes shall be carefully located so
as not to unduly interfere with existing or planned agricultural activities.
3.3 Discontinue Agricultural Segregations for homesites (life estates serve the same
pulse)-
3.4 Continue Agricultural Segregations for agricultural processing while requiring an
agricultural conservation easement on the remaining land, a vegetation buffer of
6 to 8 feet at full growth around the processing use, and a 200 -foot setback from
the agricultural area
3.5 The primary purpose of the Orchard and Field Crop and Grazing and Open Lands
land use categories shall be for agricultural production, related processing, and
services in support of agriculture. Residential uses, such as the farmer's home,
in these categories are secondary uses and are permitted on a limited basis to
assist and support agriculture.
3.6 Carefully locate residential lands where limited agricultural uses and farm animals
are allowed, to avoid conflicts with agricultural operations. This includes, but is not
limited to, commercial stables, and the raising of exofic animals.
s BUTTE COUNTY CO&OWEH&EM PLAN ■ B"Bfr A -Adopted May 9, 1995
AE - 13
■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT a
3.7 .Ensure that pre-existing lots, uses, and buildings which were legal prior to the
adoption of the Agricultural Element are permitted to continue.
Programs
3.1 Require recordation of the County's Right to Farm agreement as a condition of all
residential land divisions in areas adjacent to or designated for Orchard and Feld
Crops and/or Grazing and Open Lands. Promote a general public awareness and
understanding of the special requirements of commercial farming, ranching, and
agricultural practices associated with normal farm activities_ Additionally, provide
the County Recorder's Office with copies of the County's Right -to -Farm Ordinance
and copies of the County prepared written explanation.
3.2 Require sellers or any fiduciary agents to provide a County prepared written
explanation of the County's Right -to -Farm Ordinance as part of the notice package
to prospective buyers in areas adjacent to and within Orchard and Feld Crops
and/or Grazing and Open Lands areas.
3.3 - Utilize mitigation banks, environmental mitigation sites, wildlife refuges, and other
natural resource preserves, within oradjacent to land designated or used for
agricultural lands, to allow the continuation of standard fanning or ranching
practices.
3.4 Enforce provisions of existing State Nuisance Law (California Civil Code Sub=
section 3482.5).
3.5 When a. request is made for a ;Use. Permit. on a',- lots) with existing agricultural
operations, regwr'e thersubmittalof anagnculiuraf maintenance plan to providefor
th(i continuati�-ofeiasfirig agncuItLi W acts The plans shall be reviewed for
..:.
comments and con itioons by the Agriculture Commissioner unci Plarirnng Services
prior to the Planning Commission hearing on ttie Use' Per*mit"
3.6 Provide; a .definitive purpose section for the. agricultural zones. and a list of
agncuitural s uses, :. inctuding, but not lun�ted to, crop-prciuction, orchards,
aquaculture, animal husbandry; agricuitur'al industries; anddthe like, which preserve, .
promote, and support the agricultural area
3.7 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to recognize the legal rights of existing legal lots,
uses, and buildings which, as a result of the Agricultural Element, do not comply.
Additionally, amend the Zoning Ordinance to exempt legal non -conforming lots,
uses, and buildings, in Agricultural Zones, from the requirement of a Use Permit
for expansions, additions and modifications that would normally be allowed for
conforming lots, uses, and buildings in Agricultural Zones.
■ BME COUNTY CWPRENBYSAS PLAN ■ EMIBLT A - Adopted May 9, 1995
AE - 14
■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■
■ Drainage plans prepared by a registered civil
engineer
■ Mechanisms for maintenance
4.4 To address downstream flooding and to protect properties and the 'public from
flooding, work with the cities, special districts; the farming community, and property
owners to jointly prepare and implement a Countywide Master Plan of Drainage.
4.5 To reduce soil erosion, encourage the conservation of soil resources.
4.6 Participate with wastewater generators to establish programs for agricultural reuse
of treated wastewater in a manner which would be economically beneficial to
agriculture.
4.7 Work with state and federal representatives to amend or develop legislation which
, continues to promote 'and protect agriculture in California and the -nation.
4.8 Adopt a comprehensive watershed protection plan which includes.
■ Identification and protection of zones with high groundwater
recharge potential
■ Monitoring i and regulation of groundwater extraction to
prevent adverse effects of groundwater overdrafiing.
issue: The ability, to earn a reasonable living from farming is a predominant factor in a
farmer's decisionto farm or to convert the property to other uses..
Goal 5
Seek and support preservation policies and programs to' protect long:tenr agricultural
production:::.
Policies
5.1 Encourage tl ie. use of the Williamson ' Act as a means of preserving agricultural
land: ,
5.2 Actively encourage the use of voluntary agricultural and open space easements
wrth the County or appropriate private land trusts as a.means of preserving land
in agricultural and open space use.
5.3 Use proactive incentives including but not ltrritted to density bonuses, clustered
development, Transfer of Development Credits (FDC), Purchase of Development
The steps used for forecasting California's 50 -year aggregate needs entail: 1) collecting yearly
historical production and population data for a period of years ranging from the 1960s through.
2000; 2) dividing yearly aggregate production by the population for that same year to determine'
annual historical per capita consumption;. 3) determining an average historical per capita
consumption; 4) projecting yearly population for a 50 year period; and 5) multiplying each year of
projected population by the average historical per capita consumption rate to get a total 50 -year
aggregate demand. It should be noted that the years chosen to determine an average historical per
capita consumption differ. depending upon historical aggregate use for -that region. For example, in
Shasta County, major construction projects from the 1940s through the 1970s caused historical per
capita consumption rates to be extremely high and unrepresentative of future aggregate demand
(Dupras,1997). Consequently, an average historical per capita consumption rate for Shasta County
was based on the years 1980-1995.
Effectiveness of the Per Capita Consumption Model
The assumption that each person will use a certain amount of. aanshuation aggregate everyyear is
a gross simplification of actual usage patterns, but it is'intuitively correct to assume that an
increase in the number of people will lead to the use of more aggregate. Over a long enough.
period, perhaps 20 years or longer, the random impacts of major public construction projects and
economic recessions tend to be smoothed out and consumption trends become similar to historic
per capita consumption rates: Per capita aggregate consumption has, therefore, become a
commonly used national, state, and regional measure for purposes of forecasting.
The per capita consumption model has proven to be effective.for prediction of aggregate demand
in the major metropolitan areas. The Western San Diego P -C Region and the San Gabriel Valley
P -C Region are examples of how weft the model works having only a 2°jo and a 5% difference
respectively, in. actual versus predicted aggregate demand (Miller, 1994 ,.199 Havveyer -the
model may not work well in county'
aggregate studies where boundaries have little correlation to .
the. aggregate market area and in P -C regions that import or exporta large percentage ofaggregate..
In Bach cases, projections were based on a modified per capita consumption model. For example, if
a P -C region imports 30'/0 of its. aggregates the total 50 year proj ectad aggregate demand for. the
P -C region may be. decreased by 30%. _
Where no correlation could be made between population and historical use, 50 -year aggregate
demand was based on projections of historical production. This lack of correlation can exist when
a study area has a large percentage of aggregate imported into the region such as in Orange County
(Wer, 1995) or when a large percentage of aggregate is exported from a region such as in the .
Monterey Bay P -C Region (Kohler-Antablin, 1999).
Permitted Aggregate Resources .
Permitted aggregate resources (also called reserves) are aggregate deposits that have been
determined to be acceptable for commercial use, exist within properties owmd or leased by
aggregate producing companies, and have permits allowing mining and processing of aggregate
material A "permit' means any authorization from or approval by'a lead agency, the absence of
which would preclude mining operations. In. California, mining permits are issued by local lead
agencies (county or city governments) not by the state. Map Sheet 52 showspermitted aggregate
resources as a percentage of the 50 -year demand on each pie diagram (see FWyecn•Aggregate
5
ppN M T Y
,o BUTT COUNTY MOSQUITO AND Jig cAMY
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Nwnager
Phone; (530) 533-6038
5117 L.ARIN ROAD (530) 342-7350
�� OpMT�1r OROVU-LE, CA. 95965-9250 FAX (530) 534-9916
June 30, 2003
Mr. Dan Breedon, Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville; CA 95965
RE: M R T Chico Ranch Mine
Dear Mr. Breedon:
After reviewing the draft EIR for the above project we note that a large pond will
replace what is now an area farmed for dryland crops. The large open water areas of
the pond will provide suff9clent wave acti "n that when combined with predation from
mosquito fish (Gamrbusia afFinis) should nihirnize mosquito breeding in most of the
pond.
We are; however, concerned that the shallow sloped (3 to 1) edges of the pond
will result in large areas of dense emergent.vegetation. This dense aquatic vegetation
will provide ideal harborage for the production of Culex tarsalis mosquitoes which are
primary vectors of Western equine encephalitis, as well as, very competent vectors of
West Nile Virus.
As mitigation for the c reabor of this potential public health problem,'we request
that.all side slopes of.the pond be increased to a minimum 2 to 1 slope and that the
project proponent be financially responsible for the reimbursement of the cost of
mosquito control work performed by the District within the pond that may be necessary
In the future. "
incerely,
James A. Camy
Manager
JAC:ds
W. Briars Grant
Resources Design Technology
302 A South Lexington Drive "
Folsom, Ca 95630
I
v � �
%6 'Z,'/
_
k8,091,
v
N
Q1 OL "z9-/
no •
I
V
x
I
I
k Q
I
I
�
I�
x
I
I
-H
x a v
3 �L
'
I
I..
x
Ic
i
"
x
.I
I
`
x
x
I
I
e
�
` L
V �
I
I
� � dj
x
X
h
� VSO
I
a
I .
Y
_ I
j I
I
I
v � �
%6 'Z,'/
_
k8,091,
v
N
Q1 OL "z9-/
no •
.:r
9
•
I o
i
r
r:
zz
in
in
Q1 „
a ! 'I. iE�• ISI
I�
rl .
1
4
aril'is
�,,,.t, -I.',S•:T,l-..
1'e•:? � _ T... 1 lac 4 :.i.,
R I..
,
i ;
b
J
i,.
..Y.:itf �;• nT;'{'. +A 5 I i; � :I;., Ir: i�T is':�
y1 p.
�,• :�I., '11> �.Q I ' \.i4 ;Bf:vif
I'
�•i
a
o —
rl.
1:
is J. :.�. •I��IiN '1.2 N '+!1� li,dli
n _
A:
I
f`
fir. - !:1: I I :1 •1. ft;:�
I'
_si.Wit,:•y,
,
J:: •:.,.� r. i,. I ..� :. li T. 6tl e:i� .I' .I! +`r�1"'l:'1
r• -x,:91, -rI• E
:
• t :1 fi — — — — — •,,� °:_,_ is
ifai3:api1. 1'h.; •; i,..;� t���[
E
u
lig
jl.
' �''�1• � :a .i' I r
r.. J I • o i7i;76t7„' `i :1„ ', �,...., w'6t>3H%'osr. :f.(r i': I:
Y� II
41
;:i• I'] '� rr� •\ .i1 iii '�sl ''i 1..
I �\
I -
I
:8^.,.. ..JJ „ � x rii'i sir” _ _ .. .. • _ i.. .... _ _ !j_>.
{
:
i_. _ ...-.:.. ." ......:.. ,. :......,•.raw:.'-:.+.. ..::... ........I:
,S -
Li
5
cq
- '41
ZZ
L
eV
,S -
Li
5
ZZ
R
�s
I
rk
-'rock through Butte
County at a rate of,
in -truck loads a
day (210 round
trips) for 105 days..
.. The.trucks will
come south Aown
a Hamilton Nord Cana
Highway, then some
will travel west
alongWilson Land -
i '
jog Road whlie •the
t rest will continue
south. through tltt
town of Nord, just
half block Iron
u Nord Elementary
1 i 7 £�;� 'J:. ire-, va � •°S v] ?` .
•
' VL
�t 32
ad
Proposed rock hauling could decimate
county- roads, threaten. schoolchildren
told Crump they plan to haul ager (or the Arm y Corps; acid he
..y�ilkeQTVVa1P. - _
_` duecior,of pilbhc works, down t ir8.00eitons.of rock down High-' is preparing a response to
wane to rehve the aftermath of the way 99 to Hamilton Nord Cana'. Crumps's letter and undershnds
`{ by floocLs'of i99g and i 8 That s , Highway, -then split the loads with the concerns presented.
Matt` when rk laden ttueks traveled up �o percent going west Wilson Vv'e are addressing those con
Notley and do_.K71
n county roads lii efforts to : Landing Road and 3o percent con- ceras and we are working to
mattn� heli contaui bulging levies'as timing on Cana Highway through resolve them Rauden sate "It': .
neiwsrev'ieii.com flooded fields caused road damages < Nord to State Route 32 and then a very timely matter:" y `
liXhem>EWons`of dollars
^ west across the Sacramento River. Raliden said ultimatel t is ti
photo . So when a proposed project to The latest information from the contractors responsibility tea cool
by haul.more than ioo,oeio tons of Army Corps, Crump said, is:that dinate the hu gh the
with the .
Tom` rock down some of hesame coon= the.project.will begin April 15, but counties,ahough the Army>rorp:
:Attgel ty.roads crossed Crurnp's desk, it : he hasn't received final word. is helping to medtate the'¢cncern
raised a cid flag.. Neither has Cynthia Davis, "The nature of these coucem�
communications director for.,,ace not uncommon " Ratrden snit
' rrigation Distct Crump said [hats 4arcks
The project calls for the trans commuiitiil
port of tos truck loads of heavy Glenn-Colusa I
boulders every day, on two sips- who is. also concerned because the hauls in .95°and 98
i rate routes, to barrel down Hami1= truck ioute may go,though in .se `
City y , s cauwd col
ton Nord Cana Highway (through Hamilton Cit in Glenn Count s y
the'community of Nord) and Wil- `There are no definite routes; s. iderable damage z
son Landing Road on the way to and it is a concern being discussed `°There were huge potholes
the Sacramento River; which with the contractor," Davis said: The roads cracked Itralh'just;
` divides Butte and Glenn counties. Tlie tiucking contractor hired fell apart,"nimprsaid C tir
The rode is needed to•coniplete a by the:Army Corp's is John
roads,zren'x'buttt o`,withst3itd th
RO,
$Qi million fish screen project by Mc?.mis Enterprises, which amount of traffic '
the ArmyCotps of Engineers for couldn't be reached for. comment As of press htpe, CrumQ said
_ te_lett a has not iecerved a foraal traf
th - f the eC plan from the contractor, lahn
e Glenn Colusa Irrigation Dis Gump wrote:a passi
take facili ply C s
to Col Michael Walsh o
But Wmbers is Army Corps expressuig his.,deep. IVICAIn1S, or the.. mp
the $6i8,000 ' airs that concerns forthe safety:.of children Crump:has received a prel4mina
had to be one alongIlii s - at Nord Elementary School which Environmental 1 ipact Re.�oM t
staef s`of road in i995:and i998• is a.half block from the proposed it mentions nothing about the'
' rump spoke with -th ec 's truck route Crum is also womed im act anal sis of trucks passin
P .. y
wi Smith, t! about the roads that will carry the through Nord .:
resident engineer; Larry th Y _ en Scho
and the projecfs,superintendent, [nicks because a were noti "Ilii Nord Elem tar}
Craig Chartrand, on April 7,' about; "designed for such heavy use'°; is only a half block from Hamil .
the'proposed hauling routes�They CharlesRairden, project man -Nord Cana Highway and :chop•
F
i"!�Ji.tib-.?V:a'.'w�%�%^G��:l�t\vv. .'a...«:r..j:J>�.'::-:.Y"'�:'_ifsys'GST:.:+"�?1i'ti^sOT:-:.w,y,�a✓�p
""This road damage and road fail-
ures are not only a, monetary con-
cern but also a real safety issue
that cannot be ignored."
Mike Crump
Butte County director of public works
children on foot, bicycle or vehi-.
cies must use this road to get to
and from school. if they live on the
west side of the tracks," Crump
wrote in his letter.
Crump also pointed out that the
Wilson Landing Road has only oil
and chip on a minimum road'base, ,
and could sustainmajor damage.'
"Thus road damage and road :.
failures ace m
not or►ly.a onetary.
concerut- also. a real safety'issu
n be ;
that cannot 6e::ignored; ' Crump's .
letter continues -
Crump has spoken with county
counsekaboutthe proposed project
and counsel'niet.wicti the Butte,
County Board of Supervisors on
April n to discuss options should
the board decide to take action::
The massive amount of rock
will be used for one component of
the fish screen.project, which pro-.:
sects fish from being;pulled into
the irrigation :district'siniake'
valves, Davis said: _The rock will
line the bottom of the. Sacramento
to put "a -hard point" in the river to
help prevent it from meandering
around the screens on either side
of the pump.
"Or else you'll have a $5o. or .. '
$6o millionfish screen with no
proper hydraulics," Davis said. "It.
gives the project.integrity.
The fish screen, which will
primarily. protect the winter. run of
Chinook Salmon, has been under
construction since the spring of
1998 and, as far as .Davis knows,
Will be the largest flat plate screen
inexistence when completed. O
Distribution of Project Trips
LILBMM&T CHICO RANCH MINE
C OB P ORAT ION - RI111P. County. California
Figure 4.6-3
1
MSI To Scale
spgq
EAST AVE.
CHIC0
32
32
25%
Hamilton`.
20%
to 30%
15%
5°k
Qty
W. SACRAMENTO RD.
5%
P�
9
-
A
596
.
60%
55%
t0% �°
99
15°k
10%
45%
20%
DgOy�tcFch/c
30%
PROJECT
"
SITE
uR A T N w .
45
Dayton
Q
YTON HWY.
DURHAM PENTZ RD.
a
15%
10% -
LL o Durham
300%
p
Lain
o
40%
°a
W
Ordbend'149
¢
.c
-
W GRAINLAND RD."
J
cc
J
2
cc
x
Cc
LEGEND:
10% = DISTRIBUTION WITH FULL OPERATIONS
5% DISTRIBUTION WITH MINING ONLY
U�i
SOURCE: FEHR 6 PEERS ASSOCIATES AND BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Distribution of Project Trips
LILBMM&T CHICO RANCH MINE
C OB P ORAT ION - RI111P. County. California
Figure 4.6-3
FROM FA}( NO. : 530 345 11.17 Hpr. m _tae4 U_1.4— t r l
II 1 i V! Y ('00INCAL
1 i .
� 1 A•l:v:..iltCNt. ,
t P i 13+ix ?3?n
t CIT wW CNiC.O CA
4 F, J"h S 1 1
February 20, 2004
Mr. Dan Breedon
Planning Division', County of Butte
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95355
RE: M & T Ranch .Gravel We _ .. _ ..... _ .
Dear Mr. Breedon, .
The staff from the City of Chico provided comment on a proposed gravel mine
west of the city. After careful review of the information available on this proposed
project, I am concerned with potential impacts on my community.
I believe that the provision of rock materials is critical to comrneroe and the
economy, but I think that the location of this mine is ill conceived. The mine will
create heavy truck traffic that must travel through urban and highly populated
areas. This traffic will impact the safety of my constituency, contribute to
congestion within the Chico urban area, and increase noise levels in several
neighborhoods.
Although" state highwrays will be -utilized,-proposed truck routes include city
maintained roadways. Project documentation indicates that most of the truck
traffic will be routed through the urban area and wiri cause negative impacts that
cannot be mitigated.
It appears that quality rocA material is available throughout the Sacramento River
region. An altemate knation that would cause lesa traffic and safety impacts on
densely populated areas should be ublimd. Therefore, I oppose the proposed
location of this mine.
Sincerely,
Scott Gruendl
Counoll Member
CC: Board of Supervisors
City Council
c
November 16; 2002
DURHAM UNI MD SC1.001, DISTRICT
Penny Chennell, Ed.D., District Superintendent
P.O. Boz 300 Durham, California 95938
Telephone (530) 895-4675 Facsimile (530) 8954692
httpJ/www.bcoo.butte.kl2.ca.us/durbam/
BOARD otTRUSTEES: Linda Boles Michael McDonald Bill Onbel
Tom Simmons Donna Killoran
Dan Breedon
Butte County Planning Office
7 County Center Drive
Orovil14 Ca. 95965
Dear Mr. Breedon:
p-ECEOVE
NOV 2 1 2002
BUTTE COUNTY
PLMNING DIVISION
• .-
The Durham Unified Board of Education and Superintendent Penny Chennell want to
express-oiw "strong opposition to the proposed gravel piton River Road. At this time, our
district has.serious traffic congestion along Durham Dayton Highway during the
beginning of school, lunch, and at the end of the school day. In addition to our school
busses, there "are many parent and student drivers who use the road to access both
Goodspeed Avenue and Putney Drive. The community has vocally expressed concerns
regarding theses traffic issues at school board meetings.
It is our understanding that the proposed gravel pit could ultimately result in trucks along
Durham Dayton Highway every four to five minutes. In addition to dust and noise, the
slow-moving vehicles would add to an already difficult traffic, congestion problem.
Given our many student drivers, there are concerns with the increased potential for
accidents.
The Durham Unified School District Board of Education strongly urges the Butte County
Planning Office to consider alternative sites for a gravel pit that would not add to an
already overburdened traffic condition in the Durham Unified School District.
Sincerely,
Penny Chennell, Ed. D.
Superintendent
DURHAM DURHAM DURHAM MISSION
ELEb IX]EARY SCHOOL IIVTKjt EDIATB SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL
EIZABEIT! T. CAM STEPHEN J. PMUSO PAUL ARNOLD PAUL ARNOLD
PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL
Telephone (530) 89SA695 Telephone (530) 8954690 Telephone (530) 8954680
Facsimile (530) 8954665 Facsindle (530) 8954303 Facsimile (530) 8954688 Telephone (530) 8952602
r
4
State of.California `,. Business, Transportation and Housing. Agency
Flex
your
Mernorand U -M VowI
5 Ff:I C>I ENT
Date: December 3. 2002
To: State Clearing House
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, California 95914
From: D EiPA.RTNIEENT OF CALIFORNIA ffiC;►l( WAY PATROL,
Chico, Area
File No.: 241.10360
Subject: M & T CHICO RANCH MINE, SCH # 97022080
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the M& T Chico Ranch Mine, State Clearing House #.97022080. The California Highway Patrol
(CHP) Chico Area, is the primary agency that provides traffic law. enforcement, safety, and
managerneflt within the unincorporated portions of Butte county. Chico Area is responsible for
River Road, Chico River Road, Ord Ferry. Road, Hegan Road, Dayton Road, Durham Dayton
Highway -and the Skyway. We offer the following comments: .
The proposed project will have a significant adverse impacts on the roadways the project
mentions that are under our command. These roads mentioned are also primary routes of travel
for local commuters. The additional truck traffic would create an unacceptable safety hazard for
the motoriag public. In addition. to commuters these toads are used to transport slow moving
agricultural equipment and bicyclists.
—� ��ad-(-SR-32 to -Chico River Road): This roadway is narrow in width, separated by
double yellow lines -and has numerous curves. The design ofthis roadway makes it difficult
for corrunercial vehicles to safely and legally negotiate. The increased commercial traffic will
create a potential safety hazard for the motoring public.
® River Road (Chico River Road to Ord Ferry Road): Truck traffic, will be entering and exiting
thffi
e project site slowly as well as crossing into the opposing lanes of traffic as they enter and
exit the project site. This additional truck traffic will create a safety hazard for the motoring
public.
• Ord Ferry Road: The Little Chico Creek Bridge is substandard and not wide enough to
accommodate opposing large commercial vehicles. Large commercial vehicles -attempting to
sirnult-,meously traverse the bridge would create a safety hazard for the motoring public.
State Clearing douse
Paize 2
December 3, 2002
s
Skyway/Baldwin Plant Driveway: The additional truck traffic at this location would create an
unacceptable safety hazard for the motoring public. Because this intersection is uncontrolled,
trucks who would be slowing to enter or accelerating to leave the driveway would have to
cross eastbound SkyNvay to go westbound, This maneuver is in un;;afe due to the
slow speeds large commercial vehicles travel. These above factors increase the probability for
a high speed collision to occur.
The traffic analysis for the Final EIR should consider these concerns and identify, appropriate and
adequate mitigation measures to alleviate these conditions.
A. T. SMITH, Captain
Commander
Chico Area
r
November 22, 2006
Planning Commission members,
I would like to bring to your attention a letter from the Department of Conservation
Office of Mine Reclamation dated June 10, 2004. In this letter the DOC listed 12 areas of
concern regarding the reclamation plan for the M & T Chico Ranch Mine. In response to
this letter Baldwin Contracting wrote a letter dated September 20, 2004 detailing how they
were trying to deal with the concerns highlighted in the DOC letter. (I'm not including
copies of.these letters because I assume they'll be included in the packet of information
that you receive.)
On November 21St of this year I went to Dan Breedon's office and we discussed
these two letters. Dan told me that he had talked to two people at the DOC, Leah Miller, a
botanist, and Will Arcand, a hydrologist. He said that after talking to these people that the
DOC, having read Baldwin's letter, was now satisfied with the reclamation plan.
I'found this a little hard to believe because Baldwin had done very little to try to
rectify any of the concerns brought up in the DOC letter. At this' point, I decided to call Jim
Pompy, the Manager of Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation since he
was the one that had signed the DOC tetter dated June 10, 2004. He told me that this is
the way it works: He said that their department comments on the reclamation plan telling
the lead agency their concerns with the plan and then usually the applicant, in this case
Baldwin, will comment back. He said that the DOC does not usually comment back to the
lead agency in response to their comments. He said it is up to the lead agency (and
ultimately the Planning Commission and then Board of Supervisors) to decide if the
problems brought up in the DOC letter were properly addressed. He said that I could quote
him on this: °If we have not written the County and told them in writing something to the
contrary that our comments as stated on the reclamation plan stand."
So knowing this I would like to point out some areas that I do not think were properly
addressed by Baldwin's letter. These points were enumerated in the June' 10, 2004 letter
from the DOC to Dan Breedon in the Planning Commission.
Point number 2 - The writers of the DEIR just couldn't say enough positive things
about this project. One of the things the EIR said was that this lake would act to enhance
ground water recharge. The DOC says that this is not true and the evaporation would .
negate this benefit.
Point number 3 - The DOC says that "There is no detailed engineering design for
the bypass channel or weir'. When the DOC wrote this I'm sure they didn't realize that
there are two bypass channels proposed and we don't have the foggiest notion where
either one of them are going to be put in relation to the fence line, the creek, or the lake.
Baldwin states that these will be designed after the project is approved, and the DOC says
that this is not okay and that the engineering work necessary is totally lacking and this must
be addressed prior to approving the reclamation plan.
There has been no additional engineering work done on the bypass. channel but
Baldwin did give at least a conceptual engineering plan for the weir. I thought it was
interesting that in one place they. said that at no time would any work be done that would
disturb the bottom of -the Little Chico Creek stream bed, but then I. see on the set of
drawings from Northstar. Engineering dated August 2004 that they are planning on putting
cobble or rip -rap clear to the creek bottom all along the about 1500 feet of the weir.
Point number 5 - The bypass channel on the west side of the project is supposed to
be about four feet deep at it's deepest and about 50 feet wide. The DOC says that a
maintenance agreement must be in place for maintaining this channel. It wouldn't take long
for a bunch of trees to grow up in this channel and once that happens when flood waters do
come through the flotsam in water builds up around these trees and in essence forms a
dam. I have to continually work at keeping the trees and other debris cleaned out of Little
Chico Creek as it goes through my property. There are always trees falling over or other
things accumulating in the creek, and if I didn't make it a point to keep the stream bed clean
it wouldn't be long before the flow of water down the creek would be plugged up. In their
response to the DOC's concern Baldwin said that they only plan on maintaining this
channel until the mining is done. If it gets plugged up then they don't seem to care if we
have additional flooding problems.
Point number 8 - The DOC continues to ask for more details on what the final
reclamation of this project will look like. They asked for the total acreage of the 50 -foot
wide wetlands that Baldwin wants to put along the edges of the project site in order to get
rid of the 15 feet of prime farmland they will have to remove in order to get to the gravel and
the dirt that is mixed in with the gravel. In their response Baldwin chose to completely
ignore this comment. It appears that they have no intention of saying how many acres this
will be because they probably intend to sell as much of this dirt as possible, and if they sell
it they won't have it available to put along the edges of the lake. I wouldn't be surprised if
the M & T Ranch didn't buy a lot of it just to build up their fields in the area so they wouldn't
flood as bad..
Point number 7. 9 & 10 - Again the DOC states that the members. of the Planning
Commission will need more information in order to make an accurate assessment of this
project. All these areas are in regard to revegetation and in all of these Baldwin. refused to
provide the details that the DOC felt was necessary for an acceptable reclamation plan.
Ultimately it appears that Baldwin plans to mine their gravel and sell as much dirt as
possible and then just walk away from this project. It doesn't look like they have any
intention of being responsible for maintaining it after they leave, and they're just hoping that
native plants will grow and they won't have to do anything. But the Department of
Conservation makes it very clear that this is totally unacceptable.