Vulcan Saga Continues: The New Plan Raises More Questions
By Paul Naccachian
Stop for a moment and imagine. Imagine the slow process of stripping away a mountain of its natural and pristine beauty that existed for thousands of years. Visualize the progression of rock removal from the mountains while erasing its surface and altering the natural balance of its ecosystem.
When surface mining occurs, all characteristics of the environment are changed forever. With this change, issues relating to quality of life, such as pollution, water quality, and aesthetics are discussed. It is neither pretty, nor welcoming in most communities.
Such was the cause for passions and, at times, emotions, to run high from both concerned citizens of Azusa and City of Duarte representatives who attended the Azusa Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday. At issue is the highly contested proposal by Vulcan Materials Company (VMC) to expand its current East-side 80 acres mining operation to the West-side 80 acres. This proposal, if approved by the Azusa planning commission and the city council will primarily expose the residents of Duarte to the headaches that Azusa has been battling for decades.
To clarify and to eliminate any confusion, the applicant, Vulcan Materials Company (VMC) and Azusa Rock Quarry is one and the same company. VMC acquired the Azusa Rock Quarry in the late 1990's and continued the mining operation under a conditional use permit granted by the City of Azusa.
After years of operation, VMC has now come forward with a new plan offering a better alternative to the one that already exists. The application submitted last year proposes to mine a new area on the Westside of its +/- 270 acres site that VMC currently owns.
As required by law and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, projects that disturb or change existing environmental conditions trigger various environmental impacts and concerns in the surrounding areas and communities. Accordingly, each project must go through rigorous analysis to assure that environmental impacts are avoided or reduced and, when feasible, alternatives are utilized to avoid significant damage to the environment. This analysis and evaluation is reported in a document known as the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This report was prepared by consultants to the City of Azusa and paid for by VMC.
The EIR review and comment period will close on Friday, February 5, 2010 concluding the 45-day period that began around the Christmas holidays. The public comment period will continue with the Azusa Planning Commission at both February 3rd and 10th meetings, at which time the Commission will deliberate and make recommendations to the Azusa City Council. The public will once again have an opportunity to make comments about the project.
First: What is the benefit to Azusa if the new proposed plan passes?
The project is not as simple as VMC presents it to be. In their campaign, their focus has primarily been on the reclamation process. However, there are multitudes of considerations that must be addressed.
To begin with, VMC heavily relies on the premise that if the new operation moves to the West-side, the reclamation process on the East-side will begin immediately, as opposed to year 2038. In addition, the old method, which according to VMC has not worked as projected, will be replaced with a new improved micro-benching system. Micro-benching is simply the cutting of stair-steps on the surface of the mountain to create a planting surface for vegetation after mining has concluded. The process in place today is what's often referred to as the 40 feet benching that cuts into the mountain and is likely to be around for decades to come.
Although conceptually appealing, there is little evidence to support the micro-benching contention as a feasible option. To bolster their case, VMC heavily relies and points to a micro-benching project completed by Cal Trans off the 210/ 605 freeway. Based on comments presented, the geological conditions, and the scale upon which Cal Trans implemented its micro-benching system is not at all the same compared to a mined surface area.
Common sense dictates that growing vegetation and native plants on a hard surface such as rocks is not the same as growing it on soil. Although micro-benching is potentially more appealing than the existing system, there is no direct evidence presented by VMC to indicate that these types of reclamation system will work in a mining operation area. It is too risky to depend on a proposal that does not provide clear evidence of its successful application in a similar mining environment.
Second: Will there be reclamation if the new plan does not pass?
What is troubling the most is VMC's attitude in presenting its case. During their presentations, Vulcan's position has been "accept what has been proposed" in order "to gain the benefit" of reclamation to start sooner than 2038. If the plan does not pass, VMC will continue its mining operation under existing conditions and guidelines. It appears that Vulcan's entire key negotiating point is only possible with the implementation of new guidelines with the new plan. The question is: if Vulcan is truly a good neighbor, why not implement the same changes proposed under the new plan in its current mining operation area?
Third: What are the benefits and the risks involved?
The risks here far outweigh the potential benefit that Azusa stands to gain. Aside from all the potential physical dangers, another risk is exposing the community of Duarte to the headaches associated with mining. If approved, the new proposed plan to the west will expose Duarte's residents to the harsh realities of dust, pollution, and other environmental degradation especially given the fact that Duarte's closest residential community will only be 0.6 miles from the Project site.
The ugly truth about mining is that it is a complex business. The environmental concerns and the long-term serious ramifications are not clear to the public at-large. Financially, Azusa and its citizens gain very little from Vulcan either through employment or tax-base. According to VMC, their operation provides many indirect jobs within various industries that incorporate the mined rock in their products. The major use of Vulcan's product is used in paving roads and other construction related projects throughout the state of California. It is true that VMC has been trying to be a good neighbor and has donated to various programs in the City to protect its image. However, contributing to programs is not an unusual business practice as entities donate all the time.
The intent behind CEQA is to foster an informed decision-making process and government accountability. The City of Azusa leaders should accept the mistakes of their predecessors and the "bad deal" that the City Council made to grant Azusa Rock (now VMC) a 50-year mining permits.
There is no win-win situation here. Government accountability means acknowledging the past and deal responsibly with neighboring communities. At a minimum, there is a simple moral obligation to do the right thing.
All information and images provided by Save Our Canyon
(626) 629-8335
Send Page
