Butte County Board of Supervisors-

We can only strongly urge the Butte County Board of Supervisors to
support the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of this
project and to deny the mining use permit.

This project will not benefit the citizens of Butte County. It will
primary benefit some out-of-county large corporation with not interest
in our local health, safety or economy.

Currently, the demand for gravel is served and gravel truck traffic
moves along roads designed for and able to handle such traffic in a
safe and efficient manner.

Currently, the project site is a great natural habitat, it is under
the Williamson Act, and it is considered prime farmland.

The economic benefits, as pointed out be the proponents, seems
relatively minor, and if realized, are only going to go to the owners
of the mine – which are not even local (Knife River Corporation.)

The economic cost (traffic, roads, laid-off drivers, etc.) along with
the intangible costs (safety, pollution, habitat destruction, etc.) is
passed on to the county's residents – and we are local.

Supportive of many of the claims made in opposition, we will here just
mention two reason against the project and then offer responses to a
few of the project supporter's claims made in local media and in
project documents.

Reason to oppose this project:

A gravel mine operating for the next 20-30 years at the proposed site
will very likely to become the "go-to" mine for all the surrounding
counties.

That will significantly increase the number of gravel truck trips
beyond the number put forth in the project proposal meaning that
traffic safety concerns, road damage, pollution, etc. identified in
project documents will become a much bigger problems than project
documents lend us to believe.

Reason to oppose this project:

All the impacted roads, River Road especially, are used by countless
number of cyclists every day year round. Adding 8-10 hard-to-slow and
speed-up, gravel trucks per hour to that, on a narrow road, will get
somebody killed. That is in addition to regular slow-moving farm
equipment plus the farm truck using the roads in the harvest season.

This is only going to get worse when the surrounding counties start
getting their aggregate from this proposed mine on River Road.

Last, local and state law enforcement agencies have, through actions
and the lack of, indicated that they will side with commercial
traffic, even where and when cyclist's lives are put in danger.

Responses to project proponent's claims:

- Claim: In 5 years time reclamation at the project site is
going to start up. It will provide a lake system and wildlife habitat
that is good for the environment.

- Response: Currently, all 235 acres form an undisturbed
natural ecosystem. Reclamation of a smaller area cannot in any way be
a plus or an argument for first "destroying" the existing habitat area.

- Claims: a) The project will result in a saving of 2 million
gallons of fossil fuel and 11 million of rock truck miles will be
eliminated because the River Rd. mining site is a lot closer to the
Skyway processing plant that the current mining sites. b) The project
will provide the county with over $1 million in fees and add monies
for road repairs in Butte County.

- Response: a) Assuming that that is the case, it also means
that half or more of the currently employed rock truck drives will be
out of work. One driver can, with a mine on River Rd., make 2 or more
trips to the Skyway processing plant in the same time it today takes a
driver to make one trip meaning that one driver can take care of the
work of 2 or more current drivers. Drivers will get fired -- unless
this claim is untrue!

- Response: b) $1 million in fees divided over 20-30 years
and discounted over time adds up to very little (especially down the
line) for road repairs, especially in light of the fact that the
current roads are too narrow and too "weak" to handle this kind of
traffic. In the DEIR it states that the Ord Ferry / Little Chico Creek
Bridge will have to be improved and that the mining project only will
be responsible for $40,000 of that cost, based on a "…relative
proportional…" measure. The bridge project only has to be done due to
the project, so why is the project not being asked to pay the full
cost of the improvement? Right here the full $1 million from 20-30
years of trip fees is eaten up – and way ahead of the last yearly
payment in 20 or 30 years which NPV will be "nothing." $1 million
seems to be way off what the true project cost now and in the future
will be - and we are only talking about roads here.

- Claim: Every person consumes on average 7 tons of aggregate
per year.

- Response: With the significant decrease in new building
activities nationwide, that number is very likely to drop
dramatically. Plus, the 7-ton average figure is misleading. The vast
majority of people "demand" little aggregate. Aggregate is primarily
consumed by new construction and new developments.

We can only strongly urge the Butte County Board of Supervisors to
support the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the
project and to deny the mining use permit.

This project will not benefit the citizens of Butte County. It will
primary benefit some out-of-county large corporation with not interest
in our local health, safety or economy.