HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-19_Ca State Parks_MIN16-00021
Hickel, Rowland
From:Teague, Matt@Parks <Matt.Teague@parks.ca.gov>
Sent:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 9:42 AM
To:Hickel, Rowland
Cc:Ladd, Trish@Parks; Tobias, Kathryn@Parks
Subject:Comments -SCH 2019059079-Mining Permit MIN16-0002 for M&T Chico Ranch
Mr. Hickel, Butte County Planning
California State Parks, Northern Buttes District, has reviewed the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the the "Sacramento River Salmon Gravel Restoration Project", and is opposed to the
project as presented, based on the following comments, concerns and noted lack of information:
1. The given title for this project is very misleading. The title "Sacramento River Salmon Gravel
Restoration Project" eludes to a project where salmon species benefit by resulting restoration;
however, nowhere in the entire document does it refer to any sort of restoration project or any other
benefit for salmon, directly or indirectly. California State Parks encourages Butte County to apply an
appropriate title to this mining project and refrain from misleading potential document reviewers. As
this project is clearly a quarry project and not a salmon restoration project, a new title should be
assigned and the document should be recirculated for appropriate public comment. The current title
does not provide for fair and reasonable opportunity for impacted or concerned parties the ability to
receive proper notice and provide comment as established by CEQA process.
2. The only reference provided to the prior CEQA documents for the future dredging and long term
solution to repeated dredging is given by SCH number. In public response to these documents, one of
the main concerns has been a private company exploiting State resources (i.e. gravel) for personal gain.
While Parks agrees these dredged materials need to be removed from the Designated Floodway,
nowhere in this IS/MND does it mention the fact the "existing stockpile of alluvial aggregates" on M&T
property is actually State resources. Nor does it mention any details on approvals of sale or use of
proceeds, including those for the future dredging material over the 20 year period. If these materials
are officially approved to be sold, weather to recover cost, profit gain, or even to generate funds for
salmon restoration, it is essential this is clearly mentioned in the CEQA document. Any approvals by
regulatory agencies, such as State Lands Commission and neighboring public agencies, should be
referenced in document for disclosure.
o Has California State Lands Commission been involved in this project and provided the approvals
for private sale of state resources?
2
o When the mining application was submitted to Butte County in 2016, was any State or Federal
agency reached out to for discussion? California State Parks was completely unaware of this
project until the Initial Study was released for public comment.
3. In response to the surrounding land use the document mentions intensive commercial agriculture and
"public open space" but it neglects to even mention or analyze the impacts to a State Park, directly
abutting the northern boundary of the M&T property. The area along the River, referred to as the
Gravel Bar subunit of the Bidwell Sacramento‐River State Park, or locally as the "washout" is a very
popular local day use for fishing, swimming, family outings and floats; the Big Chico Creek Day Use just
upstream on Big Chico Creek has a hand‐launch boat launch facility, picnic tables and a trail. The
establishment of a 20 year mining operation and crushing of rocks will have substantial impact to
recreational uses and aesthetics, this impact requires further evaluation of impact caused.
o The Bidwell‐Sacramento River State Park's General Plan was completed in 2006 and discusses
the future plans for this park. This mining project does not even review the plan and account
for the future public uses.
4. The noise analysis is vague and does not fully vet the recreational impacts it will have on the area.
What will be the impacts to fisheries within the Big Chico Creek/Sacramento River confluence? How
will visitor experience be impacted when crushing, hauling and equipment are running the entire
summer. Will there be hours of operations or at least limits to days and times when the mining plant
will be in operation?
5. Will dust be generated and potentially dust out the public utilizing the gravel bar? What precautions
will be made to negate this impact?
6. Traffic on this small county road will be drastically changed and little discussion on this topic has been
analyzed. The document mentions potential haul routes but it does not address any restrictions for River
Road. Although there is intent to identify an "encouraged" haul route avoid using River Road, there are
no specific restrictions noted, or in place, to prevent an enormous increase in truck traffic to River
Road. Public, including the large population of cyclists that use River Road will be experiencing large
trucks with potentially escaping loose gravel. River Road is not designed to accommodate 27 loads, 250
days a year for the next 20 years. Butte County, as the lead agency and legal authority for River Road,
should also have large concerns regarding the designed use, existing condition, and safety concerns for
this use. The document mentions a traffic plan will be prepared; however, due to the nature and use in
this area Parks, feels this plan needs to be detailed in this Initial Study to hold this operation
accountable for maintaining traffic circulation restrictions.
3
7. The site flood preparedness is very vague. The removal of mechanized equipment is discussed, but
what will be done with stockpiles of processed materials and open sediment basins? Has consultation
or permit approval been obtained from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board?
As mentioned, Parks supports the removal of the accumulated deposits; however, the history of this pump
intake structure and the exploiting of State resources needs to be addressed prior to this property being
issued a mining permit. Parks does not feel this Initial Study adequately analyzes the impacts this quarry will
have on the area and encourages Butte Count to NOT approve this mining permit as it is currently presented.
Thank you for considering our concerns. We will gladly sit down with Butte County to discuss the future of this
proposed plan.
Matt Teague
District Superintendent (Acting)
Northern Buttes District
California State Parks
400 Glen Dr.
Oroville, CA 95966
(530) 538‐2210 office
(530) 990‐1712 mobile