HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence with Leah Fisher, Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Whisper Ridge Project ProcessingSUP�.40q�•
SILL CONNELLY
SUPERVISOR, FIRST DISTRICT
°
. ' �� 5280 LOWER WYANDOTTE ROAD • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95966
.... TELEPHONE: (530) 538 -6834
FAX: (530) 538 -6881
E -MAIL: bconnely @buttecountv.net
Leah M. Fisher, Senior Project Manager, CA North Branch 18 March 2014
Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 -2922 MAR 2 0 2014
Subject: Whisper Ridge Project Processing (SPK- 2012 - 01314)
In response to your letter dated March 7, 2014 (attached), this letter briefly addresses three aspects of the Whisper
Ridge project relative to your points 1 & 2 (Overall Project Purpose and Alternatives):
General Plan Consistency
Butte County conducted a multi -year comprehensive update to the County General Plan. Through unprecedented
public outreach (over 100 public meetings), the County approved General Plan 2030 in October 2010. General Plan
2030 outlined the growth areas in the County. The Whisper Ridge Golf Resort is within one of the approved growth
areas of the plan — Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan area. Not only was the project found to be consistent with
Butte County General Plan 2030, it implements an important General Plan policy of the Lake Oroville area: The
County shall encourage a full range of recreational and tourism uses at Oroville Dam and Lake (Economic
Development Policy ED- P1.3). The Lake Oroville Area has long been envisioned by the State and by local
residents to result in improvements to the area. The Whisper Ridge Golf Resort represents a long overdue response
to that vision (the dam is 45 years old).
Public Support
The Whisper Ridge Golf Resort project application was filed July 2012 and approved by the Board of Supervisors
on April 2013 with an Environmental Impact Report. There were four public hearings: Scoping meeting, Draft EIR
hearing, Planning Hearing and Board of Supervisors Hearing. The public notice for each of these hearings included
direct mailing and publications in the newspaper. Property owners, occupants and agencies (including the Army
Corps of Engineers) were included in the distribution list. There was no public opposition to the proiect. The
inquiries that our office has received have been of support and great interest as to when the golf course will begin
operation. This is the first large land use project in many years that that has been processed by Butte County with no
opposition.
World -Class Design
A common misconception for the casual reviewer is that this is another standard local golf course. The design team
includes Golf Course Designer David McLay Kidd, DMK Golf Design. Staff has met Mr. Kidd and come to learn
that he is a premier golf course designer recognized nationally and internationally. This includes having a course
(Bandon Dunes in Bandon, Oregon ranked #38 in 2013 -14) listed in the Top 100 of Golf Digest for example. Only
7 courses that were built in the last 20 years rank higher according to that magazine (www.golfdigest.com). His
design at Bandon Dunes also ranks #62 in World Golf Courses in the same magazine. Here is an interesting quote
from this publication:
"Chicago recycling mogul Mike Keiser took a gamble when he chose tenderfoot architect David
McLay Kidd to design a destination daily fee on the remote southwestern coastline of Oregon. But the
design Kidd produced, faithful to the links -golf tenets of his native Scotland, proved so popular that
today Keiser has a multiple- course resort at Bandon Dunes that rivals Pinehurst and the Monterey
Peninsula. Exceeds them, perhaps. None of that would have happened if David Kidd hadn't produced
a great first design. "
Additionally, the applicants have initiated a First Tee Program in the local after school program. This is an
internationally supported golf -sports and values educational program (www.thefirsttee.org). This is the first
such program in California north of Sacramento. Of all the other courses in the north State, the Whisper Ridge
Golf Resort is the only project to bring this recognized youth leadership and core values program.
I hope this information is helpful to your department's review of this project's efforts. If your office has any
additional questions about the comprehensive planning efforts of the County or the appropriateness of the Whisper
Ridge Golf Resort, please contact Tim Snellings, Director, Butte County Department of Development Services at
(530) 538 -6821 or tsnelIines(cbuttecoun .net.
Sincerely1,A n
Bill Connelly
Supervisor First District
Cc: Congressman Doug LaMalfa, 1453 Downer Street, Suite A, Oroville, CA 95965
Assemblyman Brian Dahle, 280 Hemsted Dr., Suite #110, Redding, CA 96002
Assemblyman Dan Logue, 150 Amber Grove Drive, Suite #154, Chico, CA 95973
Butte County Board of Supervisors, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
Grant Hornbeak, Loafer Creek LLC, 21 Blackstone Court, Chico, CA 95928
Tim Snellings, Development Services Director, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
-1 f
r
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814 -2922
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
March 7, 2014
Regulatory Division (SPK- 2012 - 01314)
Ms. Jody Gallaway
Gallaway Enterprises
117 Meyers Street, Suite 120
Chico, California 95928
Dear Ms. Gallaway:
We are writing in response to your January 30, 2014, letter regarding the Golf Resort at
Lake Oroville (aka Whisper Ridge) project, This approximately 500 -acre project to construct a
455 acre golf course with a 46 acre hotel and wellness center is located near Lake Oroville in
Section 9, Township 19 North, Range 5 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Latitude 39.523900
,
Longitude - 121.42261 °, Butte County, California.
We have evaluated your responses to our public notice comments and find they do not
adequately address the concerns or resolve the issues identified in U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's comment letter dated November 27, 2013. Furthermore, your responses are not
sufficient for us to make a finding of compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines or to complete our
public interest review and other evaluations for the proposed project
Below is a list of our concerns with your responses regarding the proposed project. We
encourage you to schedule a meeting with our office regarding our concerns so we may discuss with
you specific information related to our permit process and answer any questions you may have,
1. Overall Project Purpose;
- Based on information you have provided, we have determined that the overall project
purpose is "to to construct a golf course with associated hotel and wellness center." While the
applicant desires to develop a "world class destination" golf resort, this language has not been
defined by the applicant.
2. Alternatives:
a. We disagree with your justification of why the proposed project must be a minimum of
500 acres. Based on your January 2014 letter, you claim that world class and champion level
courses are typically structured around long fairways and average 200 acres. The proposed
hotel and wellness center have been planned on 46 acres; therefore, the discussion of
practicable alternatives should include sites of approximately 200 -250 acres, unless justified
otherwise.
b. We cannot accept your proposed screening criteria, which eliminate practicable
alternatives because they do not include "views of Lake Oroville". We would like to review your
draft screening criteria with you, so that appropriate screening criteria can be developed based
-2-
on the overall project purpose stated above. Rationale for how the screening criteria are
developed and how they would be applied should be thoroughly documented.
c. In order to limit the range of alternatives to a specific geographic location (i.e. Lake
Orovitie); we must understand why the proposed project must be built near Lake Oroville, in
Butte County, California. If the applicant is constrained to a specific geographic location, please
provide the rationale for this limitation.
d. A golf resort is a non -water dependent project; therefore, it is presumed that the
project could be built entirely in uplands, We believe adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem
can be further avoided by compacting proposed project features into upland locations. We need
specific rationale for why the project features cannot be located in uplands.
e. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that off -site alternative 1
could likely result in fewer impacts to the aquatic ecosystem than your proposed project. Using
remote sensing tools and best available information please provide an estimate amount of
potential waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located at this site so we may effectively
evaluate them in our alternatives analysis and other evaluations for the proposed project.
f. In order to determine whether practicable alternatives to the proposed project are
available, you need to expand your search for alternatives based on the overall project purpose
stated above. An alternative is practicable where "it is available and capable of being done after
taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes." if it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by you that
could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic
purpose of the proposed activity should be considered, Laws that prohibit site development
may also be a factor in determining whether an alternative is available.
3. Mitigation:
- We have determined that your proposed plan to utilize an "on-site preserve parcel" is
not appropriate or sufficient mitigation for this particular permit action. A proposed preserve
parcel that includes integrated golf course activities is not consistent with 40 CFR Part 230, and
would likely lead to adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of golf course
maintenance and landscape management activities.
4. Endangered Species Act compliance:
- Based on the information you have provided, we do not have sufficient information to
determine that the proposed project would have no affect on the California Red - legged Frog
(CRLF). The USFWS reviewed your information on February 26, 2014 and suggests that you
perform protocol level surveys for CRLF at your proposed project site, in accordance with the
USFWS guidelines found at: http.,Hwww.fws,gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-
Guidelines/es survey.htm. Additional information is needed to determine the projects affects to
CRLF and to initiate consultation, if necessary.
-3-
Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter or we may take a final action on the
application based on the information that is available, which may include permit denial.
Thank you for your cooperation and patience. Please contact us if you have questions, or
would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this in more detail.
Please refer to identification number SPK- 2012 -01314 in any correspondence concerning
this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at our California North Branch Office,
Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1325 J Street, Room 1350, Sacramento,
California 95814 -2922, by email at Leah.M.Fisher usace.army.mil, or telephone at 916 -557-
6639. For more information regarding our program, please visit our website at
www. spk. usace. army, mitlMissionslRegutatory. aspx.
Sincerely,
Leah M. Fisher
Senior Project Manager, CA North Branch
Regulatory Division
cc:
Mr. Grant Hornbeak, Loafer Creek LLC, 21 Blackstone Court, Chico, California 95928
Mr. Ryan Olah, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Division, Ryan Olah(a)fws.q-ov
Mr. Jason Brush, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland Regulatory Office (WTR -8),
Brush,Jason@epamail,epa.gov
Ms. Tina Bartlett, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Northern Central Region,
tina.bartleft ()3wildlife.ca.gov
Mr. Scott Zaitz, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, szaitz waterboards.ca.gov