Cemex Petition For Stay - Exhibits 10 and 12 Redacted - Text Enhanced

D
D
D
D
D
D
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BOARD OF LAND APPEALS
CEMEX, Inc.,
Appellant,
IBLA No. -
Appeal of California Stale Director's

Decision Regarding Mineral Materials
Contracts CA-20139 and CA-2290 I
V.
Bureau of Land Management,

Respondent.
CEMEX, INC. 'S PETITION FOR STAY
D
D
D
D
D
--
D
D
D
D
D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 2
A. Execution of Contracts and Approval of Mining Plan ........................................................ 2
B. BLM and CEMEX Work To Defend Project From Third Party Challenges ...................... 3
C. BLM's 2015 Communications and Decision ...................................................................... 3
D
D
D
D
D
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND ...............................................................5

A. The Minerals Materials Act ................................................................................................ 5
B. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act ................................................................. 6
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................7
A. CEMEX Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Appeal ................................................. 8
B. Absent a Stay, CEMEX Will Suffer Immediate and Irreparable Harm ............................ 11
C. The Relative Harm to the Parties Favors a Stay ............................................................... I 2
D. The Public Interest Weighs in Favor of a Stay ................................................................. 13
CONCLUSION .............. , ............................................................................................................... 14
D
D
D
D
D
I
D
D
INTRODUCTION
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 4.21(b), CEMEX, Inc. ("CEMEX") respectfully requests that the
Interior Board of Land Appeals ("IBLA" or the "Board") stay the Bureau of Land Management's
("BLM") California State Director Decision ("Decision") dated August 28, 2015 purporting to
rescind and withdraw mineral materials contracts CA-20139 and CA-22901 (the "Contracts"). 1
The requirements for an administrative stay are easily met in this case. See 43 C.F.R.
4.2 l(b). First, CEMEX is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal of the Decision. BLM
ignored the procedures required by its own regulations governing the cancellation of mineral
materials contracts. 43 C.F.R. Pt. 3600 (2014), and the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act ("FLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. l 732(c), by failing to provide CEMEX the required notice,
opportunity to be heard, and opportunity to cure. Second, CEMEX faces immediate and
substantial irreparable injury as a result ofBLM's unilateral revocation of CEMEX's contractual
rights. The Decision undermines CEMEX's substantial investment of time and resources
defending (in coordination with BLM) the agency's prior approval for CEMEX's proposed
Soledad Canyon Project ("Project") in multiple proceedings. Third, the balance of the equities
tips decidedly in CEMEX's favor: BLM will suffer no injury by a stay of its Decision, which
would simply maintain the status quo during the pendency of this appeal. Fourth, there is no
D
D
D
D
D
public interest in the unilateral rescission of contract rights without notice and opportunity to be
heard; rather, the public interest supports the equitable and procedurally proper administration of
the federal public mineral resource under the Mineral Materials Act and FLPMA, and the
avoidance offurther delays for an important source of building materials for the region.
Pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 4.411, CEMEX files its Notice of Appeal contemporaneously with this
Petition for Stay. A copy of the Decision is attached to the Notice of Appeal as Exhibit A.
-l -
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Accordingly, this Board should stay the State Director's Decision pending the resolution of this
appeal. 2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.
Execution of Contracts and Approval of Mining Plan
After a competitive bidding process, in March 1990, BLM and Transmix Corporation
executed two contracts pursuant to the Mineral Materials Act of 1947 and FLPMA, authorizing
the "severance, extraction, and removal" of aggregate from a site in the Soledad Canyon area of
Los Angeles County, near the City of Santa Clarita. See Exs. I & 2 (Contracts) at Sec. 2; Ex. 3
at 6 (map).
Subject to the regulatory approvals required under the Contracts, Transmix was
entitled to mine up to 14 million short tons over ten years of production under the first Contract
and approximately 42.16 million short tons during an additional ten-year production period
under the second. Exs. I & 2 at Secs. 3, 9 & Ex. A. Transmix later merged into CEMEX,
which, as the successor in interest to Transmix, now holds the Contracts.
Pursuant to the Contracts, in May 1990, Transmix submitted a proposed mining and
reclamation plan to BLM. A decade later, on August I, 2000, BLM published a Record of
D
D
D
Decision ("ROD") approving the Project subject to various conditions, including obtaining
required non-BLM permissions and permits from various other federal, state, and local entities.
Ex. 3 (ROD) at 7-8.
See, e.g., Calpine Corp., IBLA No. 2015-145, Order (July 2, 2015) (granting stay); Signal Hill
Ser,,., Inc., IBLA No. 2013-207, Order (Dec. t 7, 2013) (same).

3
All references to ex hibits in this Petition for Stay are to the numbered exhibits attached to the
Declaration of G. Cliff Kirkmye r submitted in support of the Petition for Stay. Exhibit page
numbers refer to the internal pagination of the orig inal document, and not the page assigned to
the exhibit for purposes of this filing.
-2-
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
B.
BLM and CEMEX Work To Defend Project From Third-Party Challenges
Over the next seven years, the federal government and CEMEX together defended
aspects of the Project from various challenges, including multiple actions involving various
environmental groups and local officials. See, e.g., Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter, Santa Clarita
Grp.,, 156 IBLA 144 (2002) (affirming ROD); City ofSanta Clarita v. U.S. Dep 't ofthe I111erior,
249 F. App' x 502 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming summary judgment against challenges to ROD and
the U.S. Fish and Wildli fe Service's biological opinion); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming biological opinion); Cemex Inc. v.
Los Angeles Cly., 166 F. App'x 306 (9th Cir. 2006) (affi rming rejection of challenge to consent
decree between CEMEX, county. and federal government resolving county opposition to
Project).
Notwithstanding these successful joint efforts by CEMEX and BLM, the City of Santa
Clarita continued its longtime opposition to the Project. In an effort to explore a potential
resolution, the City and CEM EX entered into a "truce" agreement in January 2007. With
repeated renewals, the agreement stayed in effect until the end of 2012. See Ex. 6. BLM
D
D
D
confirmed to CEMEX that the ten-year production period under the first Contract had not yet
begun to run, see Declaration of G. Cliff Kirkmyer, 14; see also, e.g., Ex. 5, and meetings and
discussions between CEMEX and BLM about the status of the Project occurred periodically,
including as recently as February 2015. See Kirkmyer Deel. 1 6; Ex. 8 at 1-2.
C.
BLM's 2015 Communications and Decision
On March 13, 2015. BLM's State Director wrote to CEMEX, questioning whether
C MEX had exercised "due diligence" in fulfilling the terms of the Contracts, which "makes a
process to consider cancellation of the contracts legally available." Ex. 7 at 2. CEMEX
responded on March 27, 2015, specifically asking BLM whether the agency's March I 3, 2015
-3-
D
D
0
letter was intended as a notice of cancellation under 43 C.F.R. 3601.62 (2014), and if so,
requesting a formal notice and that CEMEX "be allowed its full rjghts to address and cure any
alleged default, to the extent there is any." Ex. 8 at 3-4.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
BLM responded by letter on April 17, 2015, but did not indicate that its earlier letter was
a notice of cancellation under the regulations. Rather, "[i]n response to" that speci fie request by
CEMEX, BLM "officially request[ed]" that ..CEMEX provide documentation of actions it has
taken to meet the requirements of the contracts and the ROD." Ex. 9 at I. CEMEX provided
that infonnation in a detailed May 22, 2015 letter, and requested a "meet[ing] promptly to
discuss a path forward." Ex. 10 at 12. On June 18, 2015, BLM wrote to CEMEX requesting a
"good faith estimated timeline to beg in construction and operations," and a meeting to discuss
"whether there are potential paths forward to satisfy the interests of all parties." Ex. 11 at 2, 3.
CEMEX responded to BLM on July I0, 2015, providing the requested information, and
reiterated its request for a meeting. Ex. 12 at 7.
BLM did not indicate at any time that any of its letters constituted a notice of cancellation
D
D
D
D
D
(formal or otherwise), but instead sought information about past and future timelines for
beginning mining operations or reaching an agreement amenable to all involved. See, e.g., Ex. 7
at 1 ("writing to open discussions regarding the resolution of issues associated with the
contracts"); Ex. 9 (requesting a timeline, which was subsequently provided); Ex. 11 at 2, 3
(requesting additional information and suggesting CEMEX"s requested meeting be held
subsequent to "evaluat[ing] any additional information" from CEMEX).
On August 28, 2015, CEMEX met with BLM at BLM's California State Office in
Sacramento. Kirkmyer Deel. ,i 8. At that meeting, BLM provided to CEMEX the State
Directors Decision, which had already been prepared and sig ned. Id. The Decision purported to
-4 -
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
rescind and withdraw CEMEX"s Contracts based on the claim that CEMEX had violated an
implied contractual duty of"diligence, good faith, and reasonable progrcss." 4 Decision at 12.
At no time prior to the Decision did BLM provide CEMEX with notice-written or otherwiseof its intent to rescind, withdraw, or cancel the Contracts, or the purported basis for doing so or
eng age in any other due process.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
A.
The Minerals Materials Act
The Mineral Materials Act of 1947 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior through BLM
to sell sand, gravel, and other mineral materials on public lands. 30 U.S.C. 601-604. Under
the implementing regulations, the purchaser under a mineral materials sales contract has the right
to "[e]xtract, remove, process, and stockpile the material until the contract or permit terminates,
regardless of any rights others acquire later under the provisions of the general land laws" and
"[u]se and occupy [the lands subject to the contract] to the extent necessary for fulfillment of the
contract or permit." 43 C.F.R. 3601.21(a) (2014).
Under its regulations, BLM is required to give written notice of any defaults, breach, or
D
D
D
D
cause for cancellation either in person or by certified mail. Id. 3601.62. The purchaser has 30
days after receiving the notice to: (I) correct all defaults, (2) request an extension of time to
correct the defaults, or (3) submit evidence showing to BLM's satisfaction why BLM should not
cancel the contract. Id.
The Decision variously uses the terms "rescinding," "withdrawing," "terminating,"

"cancellation," "expired," and variants thereo f. These words have distinct meanings in contract
law, but for the case of the reader, this Petit ion will not list out each term repeatedly. The
procedural failures are equally applicable regardless of how the Decision is characterized.
-5-
D
D
D
B.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act
FLPMA was enacted in 1976 to provide for the management of public lands, and
recognizes "the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
public lands." 43 U.S.C. 170 I(a)(7), ( 12). Section 302 governs the management of the use,
occupancy, and development of the public lands, including management of mineral material
contracts. 43 U.S.C. 1732. The section provides that in administering "any instrument
providing for the use, occupancy, or development of the public lands," BLM may "authoriz[eJ
revocation or suspension, after no/ice and hearing, of such instrument upon a final
administrative finding of a violation of any term or condition of the instrument ... (p]rovided ...
[tJhat the Secretary shall terminate any such suspension no later than the date upon which he
determines the cause of said violation has been rectified .... " 43 U.S.C. I 732(c) (emphasis
added); ,\ee San .Juan Cly., 102 IBLA 155, I 58-59 ( 1988) (protections apply regardless of
whether BLM includes the terms in a contract).
The legislative history confirms the intent evident jn the statutory text. The Senate
D
D
D
D
D
D
Committee explained that "[t]he holder is given protection by the requirement that before the
Secretary's revocation or suspension authority may be invoked there must be notice and a
hearing and a final administrative finding that a violation has occurred." S. Rep. No. 93-873, at
35 (1974) (emphasis added). Similarly, the final clause, providing for "terminat[ion of] any such
suspension" when the "violation has been rectified," clearly envisions an opportunity to cure.
42 U.S.C. 1732(c).
As the Decision acknowledged and the Board has confirmed, FLPMA, including Section
302, applies to m incral contracts such as the ones at issue. See Decision at I, 17 (citing FLPMA,
and specifically Section 1732); Lon Thomas, 180 IBLA l 82, 183 n.2 (20 I 0) (mineral estate
covered by FLPMA); .James C. Mackey, 96 IBLA 356, 365 ( 1987) (cancellation provisions apply
-6-
D
D
D
to "all land use authorizations issued by the Department under any law for lands managed by
BLM").
ARGUMENT
D
D
D
D
To prevail on a petition for stay, the appellant must provide "sufficient justification" that
a stay is warranted based on the following factors: (I) the relative harm to the parties if the stay
is granted or denied; (2) the likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits; (3) the likelihood
of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and (4) whether the public interest
favors granting the stay.
43 C.F.R. 4.2l(b)(l)(i)-(iv) (2014). In applying this four-factor test,
the Board considers the "merits of the individual situations in detennining whether a stay is
appropriate." 58 Fed. Reg. 4939, 4939-40 (Jan. 19, 1993) (preamble to the Orfice of Hearing
and Appeals rule amendments); see al.w Sun Oil Co., 42 IBLA 254, 257 ( 1979) ("'injury held
insufficient to justify a stay in one case may well be sufficient to justify it in another, where the
appHcant has demonstrated a h igher probability of success on the merits"). Moreover, the Board
is not limited in its "ability to balance the relative weights of the criteria,'" and may therefore
D
D
assign greater weight to one criterion than another. 58 Fed. Reg. at 4939-40. Although the
Board's stay provisions place an initial burden on the applicant, they "do not alter the rights and
burdens of the parties with respect to justifying the ultimate disposition ofan appeal," and "the
ultimate burden of justifying the decision on appeal still rests finnly upon the agency." id.
The Board's review o f the underlying BLM Decision ''is de novo in scope." Nat'/
Wi/d/[fe Fed'n, 145 IBLA 348,362 (1998) (citing 43 C.F.R. 4.1 ): see also IMC Kalium
Carlsbad, Inc. v. Interior Bd. ofLand Appeals, 206 F .3d 1003, I009 ( I 0th Cir. 2000) ("The
IBLA has de novo review authority over BLM decisions."). Under this standard, the Board owes
' To seek a stay from the Board, the appellant must be a party that may properly maintain an
appeal. 43 C.F.R. 4.21 (a)(2). CEMEX is a party entitled to bring this appeal. See CEM EX's
Notice of Appeal.
-7-
no deference to BLMs legal determinations. See Statoil GulfofMexico LLC & ExxonMobil
Co17J., 178 IBLA 244, 256 (2009) ("There is no principle or precedent that implies or indicates
that the Board owes any deference to [a bureau's] legal views."). As to factual matters, "[i]n its
appellate role, the Board .... is empowered to make findings of fact regarding those matters
within its jurisdiction as fully and finally as might the Secretary .... " W&TQffidwre, Inc., 148
IBLA 323, 357 ( 1999).
For the reasons explained below, a stay is amply warranted here.
A.
CEMEX Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Appeal
As CEMEX will explain in its statement of reasons, the Decision sutlers from multiple
legal and factual errors. For purposes of this Stay Petition, however, it is enough that the agency
D
D
committed a fundamental procedural error that invalidates the Decision in its entirety: BLM
failed to follow any of the procedures required by its own regulations and FLPMA in purporting
to rescind, withdraw, or terminate the Contracts, and CEMEX is likely to succeed on the merits
of that argument.
BLM's mineral materials regulations require that BLM give "written notice of any
defaults, breach, or cause of forfeiture," and an opportunity to cure any alleged default by
D
D
D
"correct[ing] all defaults" and to "submit evidence showing ... why [BLM] should not cancel
[the] contract.'' 43 C.F.R. 3601.62(a) (2014). BLM acknowledged the applicability of its
current regulations to the administration of the CEMEX Contracts in its June 18, 2015 letter,
where BLM cites as authority 43 C.F.R. 3601.3, a provision in the current regulations and not
in the regulations as they existed at the time of contract execution. Ex. 11 at 1. ''
6
The Decision incorrectly suggests that termination of the Contracts is governed by the 1990
version of the mineral materials regulations, which contain no specific cancellation procedures,
rather than the current regulations. See Decision at I, 2, 7. 14. 15, 18, 19. The preamble to
BLM"s current mineral material~ regulations, promulgated in 200 I. provides that amended
- 8-
D
D
D
0
FLPMA Section 302(c) also "requires" notice and a "hearing before permit revocation or
suspension," so when "no hearing was held prior to the ... decision, that decision mus/ be set
aside." .lames C. Mackey, 96 IBLA at 365 (emphasis added). The Board has been clear that
"BLM may suspend or revoke" an entitlement or license covered by this provision "only after
D
D
D
notice and an opportunity for a hearing." San .Juan Cty., 102 IBLA at 159 (emphasis added).
Relatedly, the statute contemplates an opportunity to cure, providing that a suspension shall end
when "the cause of[the] violation has been rectified." 43 U.S.C. 1732(c). These protections
apply regardless of whether they were specifically described in the contracts. See San.Juan Cty.
102 JBLA at 158-59.
There is no question here that BLM failed to provide the required notice of its intent to
0
D
D
D
D
D
cancel the Contracts, and did not g ive CEMEX an opportunity to be heard or an opportunity to
regulations apply to ex isting contracts and permits where (I) "[t]he contract or permit
incorporates future regulations" and (2) ''[t]he reg ulations are not inconsistent with the express
terms of the contract or permit." 66 Fed. Reg. 58892. 58899 (Nov. 23, 2001); see Kin-Ark Corp.,
45 IBLA 159, 167-67 (1980) (determining an agencys intent to apply amended regulations
based upon language conta ined in the final rulemaking preamble).
Here, CEMEX's Contracts incorporate "the regulations in 43 CFR Group 3600, (which are made
a part of this contract)," without limitation or qualification, Exs. 1 & 2 (Contracts) at Sec. 9, and
there is nothing in the CEMEX Contracts inconsistent with the cancellation procedures set forth
in BLM's current regulations. Moreover, even absent this preamble language, "there is ample
authority for providing an affected party with the benefi ts of a reg ulatory change." Mobil
Exploralion & Producing U.S., Inc., 119 IBLA 76, 79 (1991) (citing Conoco, 115 JBLA I 05,
I 07 n.3 (1990)); see also T. Brown Constructor.\, 95 IBLA 107, 110 ( 1987) (because the operator
would benefit from consideration of its reinstatement request under BLM's amended regulations,
"application of the amended regulation ... is warranted herein"): Maxus Exploration Co., 140
IBLA 124, 133 (1997) (holding that "[b]ecause the [new] reg ulation changed the prior policy ...
affected lessees who would benefit by the amended rule are allowed the benefit of the change");
Ladd Petroleum C01p., I 07 IBLA 5, 8 ( 1989) (similar).
Additionally, the regulations in force in 1990 included an ..automatic stay" rule providing that
"the timely fil ing of a notice of appeal will suspend the cffoct of the decision appealed from
pending the decision on appeal." 43 C.F.R. 4.2 1(a) (1990). lf BLM asserts that the 1990
versions of the regulations should apply to the CEM EX Contracts, then the Decision should be
automatically stayed pursuant to those same reg ulations .
-9-
D
D
cure prior to issuing its August 28, 2015 Decision. In its last letter to CEMEX, BLM ( 1)
defended its authority to request information about the history and future plans for the Project
(Ex. 11 at 1-2); (2) asked follow-up questions based on the information CEMEX had provided in
D
D
D
D
response to BLM 's prior request (id. at 2); and (3) appeared to embrace the idea of a meeting
with CEMEX to discuss the future of the Project, explaining that BLM was "interested in such a
meeting, but suggest that the meetings be held to explore whether there are potential paths
forward to satisfy the interests of all parties. Such a meeting could be held after we evaluate any
additional information you provide," (id. at 3). That approach was consistent with its prior
communications. See Ex. 7 at 1 ("writing to open discussions regarding the resolution of issues
associated with the contracts"); Ex. 9 (requesting a timeline, which was subsequently provided).
Nonetheless, after proposing a meeting to discuss "potential paths forward to satisfy the interests
of all parties," BLM called for a meeting at which it presented the already signed-and-dated
Decision, reversing course from its prior letters. Kirkmyer Deel.~ I 0.
This can in no way be seen as compliance with the regulatory and statutory requirements
to provide notice of a determination to modify the contract, an opportunity to cure, and a hearing
hefhre that determination becomes final. Indeed, CEMEX specifically inquired in its March 27
D
D
letter whether the agency's February 15 letter was

intended to provide some type of formal demands of, or notice to,
CEMEX under the Contracts or the underlying statutes and
regulations .... If that is, however, BLM's intent, then CEMEX
requests that the BLM provide such formal demands in a clearly
drafted manner, and CEMEX be allowed its full rights to address
and cure any alleged default, to the extent there is any, under the
Contracts.
Ex. 8 at 3-4. BLM's "response to [CEMEX]'s request that BLM provide a formal
JO-
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
0
demand" was not to officially notice a breach, but only to "officially request[] that
CEMEX provide documentation" o f certain actions. Ex. 9.
BLM's failure to provide the required notice, hearing , and opportunity to cure prior to its
purported cancellation invalidates the Decision. It is black letter law that BLM's failure to abide
by its reg ulations is arbitrary and capricious. See, e.K., Na! 'I Envtl. Dev. Ass '11.\ Clean Air
Projecl v. E.P.A., 752 F .3d 999, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (explaining that it is "axiomatic" that
because an "agency is not free to ignore or violate its own regulations," agency action is
"arbitrary and capricious if the agency fails to comply with its regulations" (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted)); Kelley v. Calio, 831 F.2d 190, 191-92 (9th Cir. 1987) ("It is the
duty of a reviewing court to ensure that an agency follows its own procedural rules."). Further,
0
D
the BLM's violation of FLPMA renders its action "not in accordance with law" and "without
observance of procedure required by law.'' 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), (D).
Because BLM failed to follow the procedures in its own regulations and under FLPMA,
and CEMEX was not given notice and opportunity to cure, or an opportunity to be heard before
the purported cancellation, CEMEX is likely to prevail on the merits of this appeal.
D
D
B.
Absent a Stay, CEMEX Will Suffer Immediate and Irreparable Harm
CEMEX's strong probability of success on the merits, in its own right, favors the
issuance of a stay. See Sun Oil Co. , 42 IBLA at 257 (explaining that injury held insufficient to
justify a stay in one case may well be sufficient to justify it in another, where the applicant has
demonstrated a higher probability of success on the merits"). However, the serious and
irreparable harm that would be inflicted upon CEM EX by the unilateral rescission of the
Contracts also weighs in favor of a stay pending the resolution of this appeal.
CEMEX has spent 25 years working toward the construction and operation of an
aggregate project in Soledad Canyon. Atlcr numerous obstacles, litigation, and years of
- 11 -
D
D
D
D
D
extensive permitting processes, CEMEX is now positioned to realize development and

production under the Contracts to take advantage of growth in a cyclical construction market,
and obtain a return on its multi-year, multi-million dollar investments in the Project. But BLM's
Decision immediately harms CEMEX's ability to do so. Kirkmyer Deel. 119-10. The
interference with these significant mineral rights at the Soledad Canyon site is not remediable by
any subsequent award of damages. By its nature, real estate is unique. The location and the
features of the Soledad Canyon site that make it an attractive site for CEMEX cannot be
D
D
D
D
duplicated. The interference with, or delay in the exercise of, these unique contractual rights,
even during the pendency of this appeal, threatens to irreparably harm CEMEX by preventing
CEMEX from executing on growth plans designed to increase market share in the cyclical
construction market in California. Id. ,ii1 10-12. This type of harm, for which compensation is
not available, is irreparable. See, e.g., Nat'/ Ass '11 of Mortg. Brokers v. Bd. of Governors ofFed.
Resen1e Sys., 773 F. Supp. 2d 151, 180 (D.D.C. 2011) (..Economic harm may qualify as
irreparable ... where a plaintiffs alleged damages are unrecoverable.").
C.
The Relative Harm to the Parties Favors a Stay
BLM will suffer no harm from a stay. A stay of the Decision and maintaining the
Contracts in effect merely maintains the status quo. Under the terms of BLM's ROD, CEMEX
will not begin production at the site until it has completed additional permitting processes and
D
D
D
pre-mining activities. Kirkmyer Deel. ,i 13. See, e.g., Signal Hill Serv., Inc., IBLA 2013-207,
2013 WL 7790485, at "'8 (Dec. 17, 2013) (finding that a stay would cause little harm to the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in a decommissioning bond dispute where
decommissioning would not occur for several years).
Ill
- ]2 -
D
0
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D.
The Public Interest Weighs in Favor of a Stay
A stay of BLM's Decision serves the public interest in enforcing the laws and regulations
requiring that specific procedures be followed before a party's valid BLM mineral materials
contract rights can be cancelled. See, e.g., .Jung Park, d/b/a Inland RV Rentals, LLC, IBLA
2012-64, 2012 WL 1184347, at *6 (IBLA March 13, 2012) ("[TJhe public interest is served by
staying the effect of BLM's decision ... since we think that the public is certainly interested in
having Federal administrative agencies follow the law."). Indeed, these are not just any
procedures, but the core requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard that underlie
constitutional notions of due process. See, e.g., Brock v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 481 U.S. 252,261
( 1987) ("[T]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a
meaning ful time and in a meaning ful manner." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
A stay also furthers the public's interest in enforcement of contract rights and investment
backed expectations of parties entering into contracts with the federal government. See Gen.
Protecht G17J., Inc:. v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 651 F.3d 1355, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (recognizing
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
public interest in enforcing terms of negotiated contracts); PCTV Gold, inc. v. SpeedNet, LLC,
508 F.3d 1137, 1145 (8th Cir. 2007) (a cknowledg ing public interest in "protecting freedom to
contract throug h enforcement of contractual rights and oblig ations"); BLM Mineral Disposal
Materials Handbook, H-1-3600, at Vlll-56 (2002) (contract cancellation is a "drastic" action to
be taken "only when it is absolutely necessary"). Finally, the public interest in providing
add it iona I sources of reg ionally significant aggregate materials for the area's construction and
infrastructure needs and growth likewise supports a stay.
As the Director of the California Department of Conservation explained in an April 24.
2013 letter to B LM State Director Jim Kenna, the Soledad Canyon Project could play a "critical
role ... in suppl) inu needed high-qua Iity aggregate to a reg ion with intensive and growing
- 13 -
demand.'' See Ex. 14. He also indicated that "aggregate resources in this subregion will be
D
D
exhausted within the decade, assuming current development trends, and explained that utilizing
76 percent reduction in fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. Id. Thus, in the
D
D
0
0
aggregate from Soledad Canyon as a source of construction material for the San Fernando
Valley/ Saugus-Newhall area, rather than the current supply source in Palmdale, would result in a
professional opinion of the Director of the California Department of Conservation, "further

development of the Soledad Canyon project meets the Department's test of 'public interest."' Id.
CONCLUSION
BLM's Decision purported to cancel CEMEX's Contracts without providing the required
statutory and reg ulatory notice, hearing, or opportunity to cure any alleged breach. CEMEX is
therefore likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the Decision, and the Decision would
cause CEMEX irreparable harm if not stayed. The relative harms and the public interest also
strongly favor a stay. Accordingly, this Board should grant CEMEX's requested stay of BLM's
Decision rescinding and withdrawing mineral materials Contracts CA-20139 and CA-2290 I
D
D
D
D
D
D
pending final resolution o f this appeal.
~\J
u .. , ~ "
L,J
V!J ; .(U 11\,\.
:JIJ7'/;J9!17 44
HOLLAND & HAR'!'
~004/006
..~
Re~pcctfuliy ~ubmilled this 2_6th day of September. 2015.
..
~~.~~-
, .
--
~.
......
.:
D-.. -. .
ii .z
'
... . .
.,..
-~ .. O..
~
Thomas L. San:1onelli, P.C.

1-IoU.ANn & HAllT LLP
6380 South Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 500
Greenwood Village, CO 801 11
{303) 290-1600 Phone
(866) 711-8046 Facsimile
ti im,1so11cHi@Jhc, Ihindh11 rt .conl
Craig Stewart, P.C.
HOl..l.AND & HART LLP
5.~5 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200
- ...
P.O. Box 8749
-.
Dc:nver, CO 8020 I
o--...
(303) 295-8000 Phone

(303) 295-R2Ci J Facsimile
cswwart@holland lwrt.c1J1n
Murray Feldman
HOLI.IIND & HART LLP

800 West Main Street. Suite t 750
P.O. Box 2527
.
Boise. JD 83 70 I
(208) 342-5000 Phone
(208) 343-8869 Facsimile

mfeldrnan@!:!o lla11Jha1 L.cmn
;. :. :- .
D.. - ......
.
.
~
Helgi C. Walker
Peter E. Seley
D,wid A. Schnitzer
& CRUTCHER LtP
1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington. DC 20036
G IBSON, DI.TNN
(202) 955-8500 Phone

(202) 530-9595 Facsimile
lrnalker:t,~t! i b!;oml mm .c:..9m
Kerry Shapiro
J EFFER MANGELS BllTI.ER & M1rcm~1.L LLP
..
Two f;'.mbarcadero Ccnler, :5th Floor

San Frnncisco, CA 94111
_r, Shc1J1.it;Q:i:.{\1\1B [\'I .com

ATTORNEYS FOR
..
CEMEX, INC
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
..
-.
Certificate Of Service
I hereby certify that on September 26, 2015, the original petition for stay, together with
attachments, was filed ~ith the following by overnight delivery, posrnge prepc1id,
return receipt noli Iication, and arrangements were made for hnnd delivery of nn
additional copy on September 28, 2015:
James G. Kenna, State Director
Bureau of Land Management
California State Office
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1623
Sacramento, CA 95825
.-..
...
'
...
~
. :; .
.. ........
.
...
-.
and that a true and correct copy of the petition, together with attachments, was also
served on the following by overnight delivery, postage prepaid, retum receipt
notification, and arrangements were made for hand delivery of an additional copy on
September 28, 2015:
.....-.
,
..
Regional Solicitor, Pacific Southwest Region

U.S. Depa1tment of the Interior
2800 Cottage Wny, Room E-1712
Sacramento, CA 95825-1890
U.S. Department of the Interior
Interior Board of Land Appeals
Office of Hearings and Appeals
801 North Quincy Street, MS-300-QC
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 235-8349 (fax)
~l~~
Thomas L. Sansonetti, P.C.

HOLLAND & HART LLP
6380 South Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 500
Greenwood Village, CO 8011 I
(303) 290-1600 Phone
(866) 711 ~8046 Facsimile
tlsansonetti@Jhollandhart.com
..
......
...
. -.
.. - ..- ..
- .....
-.;
...... ...
-.
..
...
.
,
....
,.
:.
. ..
.: ... ~
.._ ... _...~.
.-
f'
~.
. .. "
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Dec:Ac-.r' -+-,t>r.
II
I
II
II
I
II
t
II
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BOARD OF LAND APPEALS
CEMEX, Inc.,
IBLANo. _ __
D
I
D
I
D
I
D
Appellant,
Appt:al of California State Director's
Decision Regarding Mineral Materials
Contracts CA-20139 and CA-22901
V.
Bureau of Land Management,

Respondent.
DECLARATION OF G. CUFF KJRKMYER
I, G. CliffKirkmyer, declare as foHows:

1.
I am currently employed by CEMEX, Inc. ("CEMEX") as the Executive Vice President,

Aggregates, Mining and Resources. In this capacity, I am responsible for U.S. aggregate
resource planning and management. I am familiar with CEMEX's planned Soledad
Canyon Sand and Gravel Project (the "Project") in California, CEMEX's two mineral
materials contracts for the Project with the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), and
CEMEX's activities and communications relating to the Project involving BLM, and
other parties. I have personal knowledge of the facts set out in this declaration.
2.
In I 990, BLM and Transmix Corporation executed two contracts authorizing Transmix to
extract aggregate from a site in the Soledad Canyon area of Los Angeles County, near the
City of Santa Clarita. Exs. 1 & 2. Pursuant to the contracts, Transmix submitted a
proposed mining and reclamation plan within months of executing the contracts. A
decade later, after a lengthy environmental review process, BLM issued a Record of
-l -
D
D
D
D
I
D
Decision (.. ROD") approving the plan, subject to various conditions including that
D'
Trunsmix secure various pcnnissions and permits from state, local, and other federal
agencies. Ex. 3 at 7-8.
3.
In 1991, Transmix was merged into CEMEX, which now holds the contracts.
4.
Before BLM issued the ROD, various government officials, environmental groups, and
others declared their opposition to the Project. Between 2000 and 2008, BLM and
CEMEX cooperated in multiple legal proceedings to defend the Project. These included
defending the ROD and related U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determinations at the
D
D
D
Interior Board of Land Appeals ("IBLA"), and in federal district and circuit court.
Separately, CEMEX and the federal government sued Los Angeles County in federal
court, alleging unnecessary interference with, a delay in issuing, and ultimately denial of,
required approvals. In a consent decree signed by all the parties, the county agreed to
move forward, and subsequently did so. Joined by the county, CEMEX and the federal
government then defeated a challenge to the consent decree by the City of Santa Clarita.
That litigation was not finally resolved until 2006. Additional unsuccessful City
litigation challenging the county approvals was not resolved until 2009, when the City
withdrew its appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the district court's award of attorney fees to
CEMEX. During this time, BLM confi rmed in response to CEMEX's inquiry, Ex. 4, that
the ten-year production period under the first contract had not yet begun to run. Ex. 5.
5.
In January 2007, CEM EX negotiated an agreement with the City, entitled "Principles for
Cooperation Between City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX, Inc." Ex. 6. This agreement is
informally referred to as the "truce.'' The truce was an attempt to resolve the 15 years of
disputes and litigation with the City regarding the Project. The truce was renewed
II
D
D
D
DI
D
several times annually over a five-year period. See id. In 2012, after numerous
unsuccessful attempts to achieve a permanent resolution, CEMEX notified the City that it
would no longer continue to renew the "truce," although the company remained open to
discussing a possible resolution.
6.
with BLM and the Department of the Interior to keep the agency infonned about the
D
D
future of the Project. In March 20 l 0, CEMEX met with BLM Deputy Director
Marcilynn Burke. In November 2010, CEMEX met with then-Secretary of the Interior
Ken Salazar, and met again with Deputy Director Burke, joined by Deputy Secretary of
the Interior David Hayes, in the same timeframe. In 2013, CEMEX met with BLM State
Director Jim Kenna on at least two occasions to discuss options for moving forward.
CEMEX also met with BLM Deputy Director Neil Komze in 2014 to discuss legislative
solutions. At no point in these discussions did BLM officials suggest that CEMEX was
D
I
D
I
D
During and after the truce, CEMEX was also involved in national-office-level discussions
failing to fulfill any obligation under the contracts.
1.
Between March and July 2015, BLM and CEMEX exchanged several letters regarding
CEMEX's intent to update its permits and start operations at the Soledad Canyon site.
See Exs. 7-12. In providing the documentation that BLM requested, CEMEX repeatedly
requested a meeting with BLM to discuss the matter, and specifically asked for
clarification from the agency as to whether or not it was suggesting CEMEX was in
breach of the contracts. BLM appeared open to discussing a path forward for the Project,
and did not provide notice to CEMEX that it believed there was a breach.
8.
Seven weeks after CEMEX's most recent response (which reiterated its request for a
meeting), SLM officials met with CEMEX in Sacramento on August 28, 2015. At that
- 3-
ID
ID
meeting, BLM provided the State Director's already-final, signed decision purporting to
rescind and withdraw the Soledad Canyon contracts. Prior to that meeting, CEMEX was
I.
not aware of BLM's decision, and the agency never provided an opportunity for CEMEX
to respond to, explain, or cure the alleged failures.
9.
CEMEX has invested millions of dollars in the Soledad Canyon Project over the last 25
years. This includes a bid deposit of$700,000 and perfonnance and reclamation bonds
totaling $3.5 million that have been held by BLM for years. It also includes millions of
0I
a~
additional dollars spent on, among other things, the National Environmental Policy Act
and California Environmental Quality Act processes and to defend the Project approvals,
negotiate the truce with the City, and explore legislative solutions to the disputes.
a,
10.
0I
CEMEX has spent 25 years working toward the construction and operation of an
aggregate project in Soledad Canyon because of the opportunities offered by the site. By
its nature, real estate is unique, and the location and features of the Soledad Canyon site
make it an attractive site and business opportunity. It offers an ample supply of aggregate
convenient to a specific region with high demand, and the relatively high cost of
0I
DI
transporting these types of materials makes it economically infeasible to haul them

significant distances. That is to say, the market is generally local, and production
facilities and consuming markets are not interchangeable.
11.
A delay in the development of the Soledad Canyon Project while the IBLA decides the
merits of the case would significantly increase project development costs. In general,
there is a time value of money. Developing an equivalent project at a later time, which
would occur if a stay is not granted and CEMEX is further delayed in completing
development of the Project, would cost more based on inflationary and other cost
-4-
D
D
I
D
I
D
I
D
D
D
I
Soledad Canyon Project could play a "critical role" in supplying aggregate to the area,
which otherwise will exhaust existing resources within the next decade. Ex. 14.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED on this
"Z; of September 2015, at .y?q_!,.-'"I ~u{,
{!4-af
~/~~<-=
G. Cliff Kirkmyer
D
I
DI
D
D
D
-6-
~L.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
List of Exhibits
to Declaration of G. Cliff Kirkmyer in Support of
CEMEX's Petition for Stay of BLM's California State Director's Decision
Regarding Mineral Materials Contracts CA-20139 and CA-22901
Exhibit No.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
D
D
D
12
13
14
Document
BLM Mineral Materials Contract CA-20139 {March 1990)
BLM Mineral Materials Contract CA-22901 {March 1990)
BLM Record of Decision for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining
Pro.iect (August 1, 2000)
Letter from Leslie White, Executive VP & General Counsel of CEMEX to
Mike Pool, BLM State Director (March 17, 2006)
Letter from Mike Pool, BLM State Director to Leslie White, CEMEX
Executive VP and General Counsel (April 17, 2006)
Principles for Cooperation Between City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX Inc.
{January 2007 and as amended)
Letter from BLM State Director .James Kenna, to Karl Watson, Jr.,
President of CEMEX U.S. Operations (March 13, 2015)
Letter from Cliff Kirkmyer, Executive Vice President, CEMEX, Inc. to
BLM State Director James Kenna (March 27, 2015)
Letter from BLM State Director James Kenna to Cliff Kirkmyer,
Executive Vice President, CEMEX, Inc. (April 17, 2015)
BLM State Director James Kenna (May 22, 2015)
Letter from BLM State Director James Kenna to Cliff Kirkmyer,
Executive Vice President, CEMEX, Inc. (June 18, 2015)
BLM State Director James Kenna (July 10. 2015)
SNL Metals & Mining, Permitti11g, Economic Vi1/11e and Mining i11 tlte
United States (June 19, 2015) (excerpt)
Letter from Director of the California Department of Conservation to
BLM State Director Jim Kenna (April 24, 2013)
UNITED STATES
DEl"ARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF !.ANO MANAGE.'\fENr
OFFICE:
PALM SPRINGS-SOUTH COAST

RE$0URCE AREA
CONTRACT NO:
C0f'.111tACI" FOR THE SALE OF UNITS OF MATERCALS
,
l
,
This agi-cemea~ is made undcC' authority of the act of July 3~ 1947 (61 S~. 681) a$ :imended (30 U..S.C. 601~
dG4) and die rcguladont thereunder iet forth in '43 CFR. Group 3600,-bctwccn ,he Unite.cl Staccs o( America
(hftc:laaCter aulcd the "OovC".rnmc:atj, actinc through the Authorizod OCfir o( the Burc11u o( IAad
Mt.,1agcmcnc (hereinafter callc:d the: "Auchorw:d Otriccrj, 1nd Tran,mbc CorpoS'atlon, (bc:rc:huCtcr CAiied the
~P~t").
Wltnc:,ic:tli, Thal the panics hereto mutually ~ e as follows:

$c:.c. L
01
Ec:.c:t.lvc dates The Purchucr will be obligated Cor all terms of the CQn(ract upon signing. The
ptoducdon period foe this contrl.Cl will be a mu:lmu111 o( tea yc.:1n; with 11n c:ffcctM:. elate bginnlag
tbe day the rnl~ing plan., to be submktcd_;by the J>urdlaser, Is 6pprovcd by the Authorized ocncu.
Sec. l. Contract area The Government bc:reby sells to Pu:ha.ser and Purdusct Lueby buys from
G=mmenc, undc:c tfie lcnns and condicions of chi$ coatrac:t, the minccat materials dcscn"bcd in Sec.
3 below, for .severance, axraction, aad remcw.tl, and oc:c:u~tion rot mining purposes oa. the
lollowing-desaibcd lands sicuace_d in ~c County or Los Ancclcs, State oC California.

Township: 4 North. Range 14 Wc:st. SB Meridian.
~ction l: Loe 2, SWl/4 NEl/4, 'NW'l/4 SEl/4. SW 1/4 SE 1/4
Sc:ciion 9: SE 1/4 NE 1/4. NE 1/4 SW 1/4. Sl/1. SW 1/4, SE 1/4
o.
D
D
Section 12: NW 1/'4 NJ? 1/'4
Section 16: NW i/4 NE 1/'4, N 1/2 NW l/4
O)q~aining; 640.16 acres more or fess.
Sec. 3. Amount .:and price of malcri:ils The t~af pu rchue price .shall be determined by multiplying the
total quandty oC~ch kind of miRer::if cmucriaJ dulgn ated by the rcspcc:cive unit pdc;.,; u s.c.t. ronn
below, or as changed rhrough capprais:11 bcrcun~cr,
Kind oC M!ltcriails
Quantity
Price
Tot.i.l
'f' i11i
Sand and Gravel
Kirkmyer Deel.
14,000,000
:short tQCU
so.so
:s?,000,000
Ex.1,pg. 1
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
TI,c CCJolract mc:isurc will be b.ucd ori .a truck Joadc:d ton
o(
finuhcd product (;it sc.:alc).
Dctc:rmil'\:a(ion by 1hc Authorized O<ricc:r or the qu:u,tity or rn;'ltcri:aJ, 1:il.c:n sh:dl be by weight ;ind shall be
binding on Purch:uer subject to :l(l(>C:11 only as proYidcd in Sec. 8.
Sec. 'I. Payments., pail.age o( ,iclc.. risk o( fo.s,s rcapprais:ils.
. Tide to m:itcri:ils sold liiercundcr ,hall piu.s 10 rurch;uer only upon scvcr.ancc or extract.ion
o( :ind pro~r paymcat Co, cueh 1r1111cri:lls. N.a p.11rt oC the m1ucirfals sold hereunder shalt be
severed, el<lr:ictcd, or removed by Purchaser until lldv.incc paymcnl Cor such m.i1crial1. has
been m~dc ln 11ecord.ancc with the following.
a)
Thct t>id depo;jic'ror this conuua will be app&d 10 the rir.u ins(allrncnt pa)'lllcnt oC
dlc l~~U'aQ. Each in.staltmcct pa)'IMl\t shaU be ton per cent ol the. catr
marlccl v=llue oC the total con<na amount based on appraisal In crrca on the due:
dace o( each Installment payment, or the bid amount, whichever is greater.
Each 11ddition11I ifllt11ollmenc payment shull become: due and payable without prior
nocicc whenever the value or mace.i:i:i.ts severed or c:xtracted bcreu~u d\.a\l cqWl!
lhc su,tl o( tile first and s11bscqucnt'icuc:1Dmcncs already paid by the Purchas or
on Che anniversary d:ice or the prC\'klus IN<:!lhncn< payment. whkhC'VC:r [s
sood.
The toe.al purehuc price shall cqu11I lhc ~um o( the tot.al qunndties scYCTecf and .
removed or dcsisnatcd (or ~~ran<:e and rcmOYal undet" ihe tci'm.s oC chis contract,
multiplied by the royalty rate,. in dfccz at 1he cfmc advance payment & made. Tbc:
b:\lancc due where 1es.s than Cul1 ln$1:llllment remains .ro be paid upon die wlot:al
price; will be chc wluc: or mau:rial rcm.alnfog co .be.severed aad f'cinovcd tor which
advnnc.c paymcn1 h~ no(. already been rn11.dc.. The couil purd\Me prk.e must be
p.11id prior 10 suay (<50) da)'S before: cxpiration dace of tho concr.aci:.
IC any :addilional Jnstallmcnc payment Is not m1dc by chc lime required undc.- c.hh sec:.cion. opc:ratlons un~r eon<ra~ shull be suspended immcdiacc!y aod no ma.tcnals
may be rcmOYcd from t:Ofl(tllc:t ll1'C:l during tho period of .sueh suspension.
Maccrialsscvcred. cxtraacd, or removed dunns any such period oC cuspcnslon cb:aU
be deemed taken in trcspau and be charged lO and 1)2Jd r by Purc:bascr ac lriplc:
1he: unit contract price tbcccfor, or a& lriplc the re:i,ppralscd unit price 1C ;i
rcapprais:il hllS been made. Resumption oC taking will be authorized in writing. by
the Authori?.cd Officer only artcr such required paymcnc:s h:lw. been made. Ally
suspension under this ~c:s:i~n shall not be: :1.ddcd to the peiiod
the contrac.t.
or
D
D
D
b)
Rislc of loss Purch:zscr shall assume complete ri$k of loss for all sn:ucriats. title to
which has pas:sc~. If material eo...ercd bychk"contraci. lidc to which hllli not p:is.sed,
is d:imacc:d or dcscroycd. Purchasei- $h:1.II be li:at,fc for aU Jou suffaed iC Purchu",
his conrraaors, or sutxontractors, or GmplO)'Ces o( any of 1hcm, ate diualy oc
indirectly raponsiblc lot the d:a.ma.sc. IC such material ls d.:im~ged or destroyc.d
without fault on their part, Purchaser shan be liabfc for loss suslulncd to the cxtc:nl
that it u c::1used bf hls (111lure to sever, e>.uac:r, or remove the damaged 1ru~tcrial
under the cira.tmstance:s and terms o( this concraa. c;,cccp< th.lt n0<hini; hclc(n shall
be construed to rdicvc: either p.11rty from lia.bility for btc:ach of contraCC oc- aay
W"onslul or ncslisenl act,
.
c)
The price per .short ton or finished produa for wttich payment is made during the
firs.t four y=r:s followins approval of the mining pl.an by the Authoriz:.ed Oetieer
shall be the bid royalty o( SO.SO per short (on, and shall not be subject o
n:appr.ii~I during chat four year ~riod. The mukct value~! 1hc matc,ial (or
which paymenl has not yet beea m2<fc shall be: reappraised ar the expiration o( four
years and :a.l inlc:""21s ol not lcu than every tw0 years lhcrc:iCccr In accordanu witl1
the rcguf:uioos set forth in 43 CFR Scc1ion '3610.12(b). After the first (our ycan
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.1,pg.2
D
D
,he ror.ihy will be rhc hipu or either the orisin.:.I roy:illy bid o( SO.SO per short ron
or he m.:.rkcl nklc as c.su.brtShcd by appn1i~I.
d)
[]
Sec. 5.
Bonds a)
0
OJ
I
01
01
Sec. 6.
Refunds or credits will be m~de to the rurchascr as permitted by chc regulations

set forth in <13 CFR Scaion J610.l-t
The Purchaser s h
within
~l
(hl 30 day period artcr receipt o( chis. contract file with
ihc Au1horiu.d_~cc:r an ~ m.alncain .a.t aft times the bonds required \llldcr the
,-cgula<ions in "={ Cr
10.1 0 be Curni$hed U a tondicion lO the wu:mcc: o( this
contna in the ~cuount o.t c1uy per ccnc o( I.he fair market v;a.lue oC the coca!
concr:1ct an,ouat.
b)
IC all cemu o( the contract.arc 110< CahhCully .ind fully performed" by Purchaser. the
pcrlorm.ance bond rcqvire,d by 43 CF.R 3610.1-5 shall be forrcited to Che amount o(
damages deccnnlncd by the .,..u,hoclzed Officer. It damages c:xcc:cd the asnoW1t of
the; ~nd, Punfa..scr hereby ac!cnowlcdgc:$ liability for such cxed-S. Upon
.1a1isfactoty pci(orroancc oC thi6 contr ac;t. r.he botids sh:lll be. CAncelcd, or l{ Cll.Ch or
Uniccd Suucs boa&: were furnished in lieu oC a surcry bond, ,uch cuh or ~urides
shaU be rccucned Co Purchuer.
c)
Whenever any bond furnished under this concr.ict is found unsatisf:aaory by cho
Authorized OC!ic.cr, he or she may require a new bond whlc:h Is sati$f.:i.ctory ,o him
or her.
Expiration of contrad - This contract .shall expire wh::n !he 1otal amount of maccrials sold has been
severed and rcmolf'Cd or 10 years Crom the: cfl"c:ai ve date: of ,be. producdon period unlcsc An
extension o( time gr:i.ntcd:
or
SCC:.? . Equal opportullicy dau.sc This pemiit is .subjea to the pro'lisions of Executive Order No. lll~
Sep<~. 196S. as amended. which sets fortb, the nondt~imin2cion dauses. A copy of this order m:i)
be obtained from the sisning OCfKr;r.
Sec. 8
Appeal - An 3ppcal from .a decision by I.he Authorizcd Officei- m.ay be made pursuant 10 43 C!'R.
Pan 4 a~d co lhc Iatcrior Board oC uad Appeals (rBW'.).
Sec:.9
and reserved items The rights

P"Ur ch.iscr :shall be subJccc lo 1he rcgub.tions l1t. -43
CFR Grou
(which arc made a part o( lhi$ contract). 11nd the following stipulati<>f\S llUrked
Exhibit
which arc .-.u.ichcd hereto and made a piirt hereof. The auached stipul:UioC\$ appc.:ir " 1
p:igc hereafter.
Tally wcig.ht t.iclccts will be required to be Curncshed to che Au1hori:i:ed OCJi~r. Weia;bc.s wil
be m:,dc of finished product at cutilied scales, al the pit silc or another point approved by
the Author\%ed Officer. All cic:kets must show the material wcighc, time o( ~ighmg aad
weighmastcr's .signacure, and shall also include gross weigbc. (are weight and c:ilculaccd 11e1
weight uni= :mother method o( the weighing is approved by the Authori~ Office:. /\U
weights wilt be an.ached to a monthly reporcing Corm (Exhibic B). E,Qch repon (of'trl and
a1uchcd wcii;ht_tid:cu shall be $Cnl 10 the )\t1thorized Officer no later than 10 days :aflcr
or
the report month.
T11c Authorized Offio::r may granc an extension o( time up co one year in accordance with
!he rcgula<ioru: in compcu:ition foC'" periods o( mine plan review exceeding sbl month$ or
legal cli.\Ucnse.s lasting o,orc than six months which inhibit fulfillment of lhe contnct by the
Purch!lser. This does not limit the Authorii.ed Ollie.er from i$$uing an extension ol Che.
eo_n lract for olhcr reasons aulhoriu:d by Che rcgulalion.s.
------- - ------- ----------------------
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.1,pg.3
D
D
D
o(
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
See. tO Forc.c Majeurc - The Purc:hasc.r shall no< be: deemed to be in default in the performance
th
cem,s o( this contr:i~ iC Pur-eb.su is pr~tc:d from $CVCring, or remo\'ins .s:ind and gnvcl from <be
&ubjcct r-opcny, or otherwise prc~n<cd Crom per(onnins the t9rms o( the contract, by causes
bQon<Htf..l:onrrol,, induding. buc withouc being limited to: acts Q( God or the public enemy,
lntcrlcccnec. vuuncs or decisions by municipal. federal, St.Ille, oc ot~cr govcrnmen4aJ agendcs, bo:i.cd.s
~ co.t1ndis1oru; any laws and/or rcgulacioa, of such municipal, ~.:ire. fcdcrjll, or oher governrnent.:il
bodi~ and c:1tascrophc resuJling Crom nood, Circ, exp;O$iOn. or other causes beyond the control oC
the Purchaser. f( any o( the stated condni;encic.1 occur, PurdiaCr shall irnmcdiaccty give the
Authorized OClicer ll.lriucn nQ(ice of the cawc of the dc~y of proouction or per(ormancc. The
Pur~r i{ d~ayed by force majeurc shall use rcuonable diligence to correct the cause of dcl.:,.y, if
COffca:i~c, and it the condition tha< caused tbe delay le correeied. Purch:iser .shill lmmedlatcly sive
die Authorized OCficer writccn notice ch~cof :ui'd Ahal! rdumc: operations under this contraa. JC the
condI1ion ch:it caused tho delay ~nO( be corr~ccl ,o,ithln six mOACh.s ddpice l'e;uonable dilig1:ncc
by the Pur~ to CO<tcct the, eondir..ion, thcu che Purchaser m~y thc:re:i.rter elect to terminate th.is
conu-ac:.& wi<hou( rur<hcr obligation by giving "'ffl.CCII notice to the Authorized Officer or the election
to terminate. This shall be in addition to rather dl:in in limiu1tion
any right on the part o( lhe
Purchuer t<J sec:k a ccswion .of the concrad: under the doctrind o( lmpossibllily o( performance,
f'riuuacion of purpose or other 1egal principles 111s might be applicable.
or
rn Witncs.s whereof, the pa((ic.s hereto have CltCCUted this contrllct a; the day first .:ibovc written.
rurchascr
Tranm 6x Corporation
(lndMdua( oc firm ft'1me)

4760 V~lley Bouleva~d
Loe
Angeles ; ca11(orn1a 90032

(Dace)
Houch 6. 1290
(Date)
If this contract is c:x=ccd by a corpcration., it mu5c acruc iu corporal~ si41.
0
0
0
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.1,pg.4
,,.
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Special Sllpulacions CA-20139
0
D
L The Purchaser mu.st comply wich the rules and rci;ul:ilions oC lhc Soullt Co:i.st Air Quality Man:i.r,cmcnt
District
.
1. The Purchucr must comply with the rula and rcsul,uion.s
Olnlrol Board, Los Angeles Region.
o( ,he
Stace of Calirorn,a, Region.al Waler QuAlhy

.
.
3 The Purcha~cr must comply with the State or CAiifornia Mining and Rccl:i-malion Acc.
4. The Purdiucr mu.st comply with boch the Aa or June 11. 1949 (30 U.S.C. S4) .and Scaion 9
E>co:.mbcr 29, 1916- (39 s,ac. 864 ; ...:3 u.s.c. 299).
or tbc Act. or
S. In :i.ccordance wilh lhe regulations at ,C CFR 3602.11 and 3602.1-2, a mining and rcdamadon plan ,bait be
submiuc.d 10 the Authoriz.e.d Otracer within !)O cla~ of f"C~ip( or lhis contrad. O~ratlons will nO( commence
until activide.s pcopo$Cd' in' the minini; ind redamation plan. ate reviewed in ac:cordance with lhe Na1iom1J
Enviroruncnul Policy Act and approved by the Authoriud Officer. Submissioq o( tho mining and redam:i.tion
plan mU$l be in aceo,danc.o with the rcgul:uioas at 443 CFR 3602.1-t 11nd 3602.1-2. The plans must mdudc
ffle.:l.$urcs to pcevcnt haz.ards to public health and s:i.k.1y and mc.:u".ur~ l<> prcvc:nt unnca:=ry :md und11c
degrad:ition as defined ac <13 CFR 3600.0-S"(k),
. .
6. Prloc co new ,urC:i.cc di.sn,cbancc Cor pt( expansion, an 11.rc:h:,,cologieal $urvcy mu$l be completed for the area
ro be dis.curbed :it the Pureh:ucc's: expens.e. It m.ay bG expedient lo ,urvcy chc cn.cke 640 aac& o.t oacc to avoi<l
fucurc delays. National Regislcr quality properties, $hould any exist on the sale parcc.l, muse be either ll\/Oided
or mitigaied through d::i.<a recovery at Che rurcbuer', expense. Sucvcy, cvaluacioa, and nec.es.sary micigation will
'meet BLM approval and will be performed in accordance wich the provi:sions o(Sedion 106 oflhc National
Hiscooc Prciervacion Ace and iu tmplcmenting rq;ulatioM (36 CFR Part 800),
7. Prior 10 new syrfacc disturbance Cot pit expan.sion, a survey mU$l be comptcted at 'the Purchaser:, ~
,on
\fie nrc:.1 bclo\Y an elevation 2000 feet. approximately 25 acres. to determine whether lhe planl 5pcclcs or habitat
o( Nevin's bari>c:rry (.Mphnnip.~'). i'i prcscnL f',.riy oJ c!.c $11CVC.)"Cd area round to be habitat CO< lhi.s .species
m11sl ci1her (!)
be disturbed by any aetivity associated with (he Q~r'.Uion, o: (2) be miti~ted by measures
included in lh<: minfog and reclam,1,Cion plan ud approved by the Auchonzed omecr~
noc
D:
D
-----
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.1,pg.5
II
EXHIBIT B
DURE.AU OF UNO MANAGEMEN1'
CaJ"d"omia Desert Dist.-ict
Palm Sprin~~b C-oatt Resoutcc Area

400 S4, Farrell Drive, Suire B-20S
Palm Springs. California 92262
0
0
D
rROOUcrJON REPORT FOR MONTH ENDING - - - - - - ' - - - - - - rn_ _ _ _ _ __
. PURCHASER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ - - - - CONTR.ACT NUMBER. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - QUAm'Tl'Y REMOVED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL l~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~
DATE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J\tcaclt coptcs o( all weight dckets for th~ rcponlng period.
The UnJCcd S(afes Criminal Code (18 U.S.C 1001) at&L:cs k criminal ocns.c co ...11rvuy cnal.::o a rlsc scucmcnl CIC r<:prcscnt,111o1' CCI
ny Ocpllnmcnc e1r ~cnq, of ckc Uoicccl Sea 1u u lO a~J matter .;chi a hs j .. risdlction. Any, ~rson or pcrtONI au kine a C.ls.c: scatcmcnl
oc Rp~n,arion shall be subj! 10 a tine o( up to Sl0.000 and lmprisonmc~c Car "1' 10 r.- ynn Cor c.ack u1Tcc1:.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.1,pg.6
D
D
'
D
D
UNITEDSTATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE lNTERlOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
'
PALM Sf'RINGS-SOunt COAST

RESOURCE AREA
0
01
[j\
CONTRACT t(O:
CONTRACT FOR THE SALE. OF UNITS OF MATERIALS.
or
or
u.s.c.
This agreement ts ffi.lDC under iu<horicy the act July 31, )947 (61 St:,.C, 681) u mer:idcd (JO
601604) and the regulations t~eundcr sec Conh in 43 CFP., Group 3600, between chc United Scacc.s of Amen~
(bcrcln:a!tc:.r ailed the "Govcnun.eflti, actiag throush the AuthoJUCd Officer 0 the Buc-eau of Land
.
Management (hucinafter called che Authorized Olliccl""), and Tn.nsmi.x Corpo~tion. (lterefo.a!cer called "lhe
rur.t:b.Mer").
01
DI
DI
CA-22901
Witaa:sdh; That ,he parties hereto mutuaUy agree:. I\S Callows:

Sec. J.. EU'!ivc dares. The Purcluuu will be oblig.a.ted !or all cnu o( the cocuraa upon ,tgnlng. The
pc-odualoa. pctiod for this contra.a wiU. be a maximum oC ccn yc.1cs with an cecdve date of che day
eftu expiration oC-Concrt.a Serial No. 201.39 becwcen the Purchaser and the Authoriu:d Officer.
Sci. 2. Contr:acc area Tbe Cove.rnJ11ent hereby 11dls to Purchaser and Pucch~ hereby buys rcom.
Government, under the terms aad cxindi~ionsor this (Oll(raCC, the 1rtineral materials descnoed in Sec.
. 3 below, Cor uvetan~ c.xcraaion. and ccmoval, and occupa<ion C.Or mining l'urposcs on the
followiai;-desch1>cd lands sic~accd In the Counfy of 1..6$ Aagc!a, State or Ollifomia..
Towndup: 4 North, Range 14 West, SB Mcridi4111

Section 1! Lo< 2, SWl/4 NEl/4, NWl/4 SEl/4, SW 1/4 SE i/4
Section 9: SE 1/4 NE 1/11,, NE 1/4 SW 1/4. Sl/2 SW 1/4, SE 1/4
. Sec(ioa 12: NW 1/4 NE 1/4
Section 16: NW 1/"' NE 1/4.. N 1/i. NW 1/4.
Coaraining: 6'!.16 ;_ere:. more: or less.
' I..
Sec. 3. Amouac and pric..c af rnarc:cial$ -The total purch.:1$C price :shall be dct~rmined by multiplying the
taut quan1i1y o( ~eh \:ind of mineral materi:11 dc.sigl\ated by the rc:spcc:tivc. unit price as ~ forth
be.low, or as changed through re;ipprawi.l herc.undec.
Kind of Materials.
Qua.nti<y
Price
Total
Sand and Gravel
.C2,160,000
short toos
so.so
S?.1,080,000
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.2,pg.1
0
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
The .conuaa meuurc
Oe1ecmin.:a<ion by ,he Auihorw:d Orlicu or lhe quantiiy o( m:.tcrial~ t:ikc:n sh:ill Ix: by weigh< and ~h:ill be
binding on Purch:zscr $ubjcd. to appc:il only 111$ rrO"J\cle.d in Sc,. 8.
Sec. 4. l'aymcnts., P=sc o( title, risk
or
Tide to mz(criab sold hen;undcr shall pass le Purchaser only uron :severance
extraction
proper payment (or such m.itcrials. No part o( 1hc malcri:ils sold hereunder 1;b::11l be
.severed, extracte.d, or removed by Pun:hl\ser un(il adv2ncc: payment for iuc:h m.:atcrials h=
been made in :iccorJance with the following.
a)
The bid deposit for this c,ontra.ct will be applied to Ilic '1r:sl inslnllmcnt paymc~t of
1he 1oul contract. Ebch inst11llmcnc r:iymcn.t shull be 1en per cent oC the Cale
market value of the total c;ontract :imounc bl!.Se.d on apprais.:1.I in effect on the due
da.lc oC each Installment payment. or !he bid amoUfll, whlcl)c.~cr ~ grc~cer.
Ead\ .:addir:ion:il trau11lmc.nt pnymen1 sh:ill becocnc due and pay:iblo vo1hout prior
no1icc whenever the value of matc:ria~ scrc:rcd or extracted b(;.('cundcr shall cquat
tho $Um o( !he firu and ,ub$equcnt insullmcnu akcady paid by the Purcrua.cer.
on the:. ~nnivcr.s:uy d.2te o( <he previous ln,t:i.llmcnC p.:aymcnt. whiclicvcr sooner.
or
The local purc:hMe price shall equ:il 1hc sum o( the c0<.ttr quan<itic:s :severed and
removed or dc.signa.tcd for severance zuid removal under the teems of.this c:on<r.i.c:t.
mufll(11ied by (he royalty nite in cffc:C( a( (he (ime acfv,aiacc paymCN lS IIIMC. Tbc
balance: due where.' lcu than a run i115tallmenc n:m:ifos lo be p:aid upon the '"tocaf
price.;
be the wlue of material rcmalatng1 ,o be sevci-ed and c-cmovcd for wbid\
advance payment bu no< already been m:idc. The total purduuc price musl be
p~id prior co si,y (oO) dcys bc<orc c:q,iradon d1uc 9C the contnict.
wm
lC any additional in.scallmcnt paymenc.ic not ,;.ade by the time rcquiced uadC(' this
seaion, operations under c:.o11<ract shill be suspended Immediately and no mateclals
may be rcraoved from conCC"ac:t ,re:i durini; chc period of such suspension.
Ma<crials $CVered, ~racte.d. or rcmO\'Cd during any such period o( su-spension ~hall
be.deemed (aken In trC$pll$$ imd be <:.~cged to and paid Cor by Purc:h.8.$<:l" o.t tnplc
the unit contra(:( price thcrc(or. or al triple the reippraised unit price if a
r~ppraisal has bcell m.adc. Rcsump~11-or t:ikl11g will be authorized in wcidn,;. bf
the Authori7.Cd Offiecr only artcr such required payments b.ave been made. Any
suspension unda thu section shall n(l( be added ,o the period of the conlract..
b)
Rislc or toss Purd1.uer shall a:uumc comple1c risk oC loss for :a.ti macenak, tide to
whid\ has r=d. J( m:i<cri:i.l cO\c.ced by this c::onc.racc. title to which has not ~ .
is dam:iged or dc.stroycd. Pu.rd\~er sh.111 be liable tor alt los.s suffered if futchasa,
his c::ontrac::tors, or subc::ontrnccors, or employees of any of them. aco di('(:.C(I.)' or
fodicectly res11onsible for the dama~. If such material i$ damased or destroyed
wichout Cuulc on thoir pa.rt, Purchaser sloall be liable Cor loss sustained to the ~en<
th.:at it is caused by hi, failure to s~'Cr, 4;xuacc. or remove the damaged ma,emil
under the circumstances and terms o( chis contr2a c:Kcepl th:u no<hing bcrcin $hall
be construed to reliGVG dlher parcy from liAbllhy for b,cach ol contni.ct or any
wrong;{ul cC" ne&ligeot ad.
c)
The pric.c 1K' short <on of finished pr,>cluc:t Cot whieh paymen< is made shall be
,~pp,aise.d :it intervals of no! less lhn every IWQ ye.au 1here.aftcr in 2eeo,dan~
with !he ,cgut:icions sci forth in -43 CFR Section 3610.12(b), :and will be th<:- lug.her
of either the original royally bid o( SiJ...50 per short (Oil or the m;i, rkct value a $
C.S<llblishe.d by A(lpraisaL
D
D
D
o( lo$S r~pprai~ls.
o( .a nd
D
D
D
D
wm be based on a 1rudc lo:ided ton o( lini, hed product (a< sa.lc).
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.2,pg.2
D
D
D
Refunds or ai;.dilS will be made 10 ch~. rurchascr as pcrmiucd by the n:gulations
Kl !qr<h ill '13 CFR Section. 3610.1-4.
d)
Sec. 5. Bonds -
The l'urchucr shall wid,in lhc JO d:1y period after rcccipl o( this concr.i.C( file wicb
Che Allthorizccf OCTicc.r and sh:111 maln~in at all lime$ the bon~ required under lhc
r~llions 1 .C:3 CPR 3610,lS 10 be furnisltcd as a c:ond'ltion lo tho wu&nQC or this
contno: in the amount of twcncy per cent o( the (:iir rn:arkc1 v.1lue o( lhc tot:il
contract amount,
ol
b)
t( all terms or the con<nct arc noc (aithCuHy and Cuny performed by Purchaser, d1c
pedormaaoc bond required by -0 a"R 3610.15 shall be fod'cited co the a.mount oC
d:i.mases detetlQine<I by the Authorize..:! Offic:Ct". TC damage$ exceed tho amount oC
the bond, Purchasa- heby ackaowlcdscs liability for such c:ii;cc.ss. Upon
salis(ado()' pcdormahcc q( lhis contract, the bonds shall be canceled, or I! c:asb or
United States bonds wci'e furnished in lieu of a surety bond, such cash or $CCUOtics
shall be raumed ca Purchaser.
c:J
Whc11c.,er ny bond furnished under: ,his conCrKci k found u1uati,f:l<Xory by the

Aulhoriz.ed Offtcu, he or .i:llc may require .a new bond which is ~tisfacto,:y to him
ar her.
DI
1
Ot
Dl
DI
o;
sec.6. Expiration of conuact - This contract. sh:111 cxpit'c when the tot:11 ;imount.of materials sold has b ~
severed and removed or 10 yea.rs from the effec:ti'IIC dale o( (be production period unlcs.i: an
e:itc:n:sioo cl lime is granced.
'
'Sec. 7 Equa(_opportuaicy clause This pcrmic Is subject to the provisions o( ExccutI11C Order No, 11246 of
Sept 24. 1.Sl6S, u amended., whicli cets forth the no.ndisaimin:acion dallSd. A- copy ol lid$ 4rdcr 1n11y
be ~ned fr!)III I.he signing officer.
be made pu~uanc t9 43 Cf'R.
Sec. 8
Appeal- An appeal from a <lccisia by chc Authori21:d om= may

Part<( and co the Interior Board of Land .Ap~Ls (lBLA).
Sec. 9
Special clause$ and rcscn-cd items : The ;ii;hl$ o( P 1.1rcho.ser shalt be subje~ to the rcgulll.dom iu. 43
CfR Ocoup 3600, (whkh arc made a p1111 or chis contract), and the followini; stiput.ations mukcd
Exhibi( A. which arc auached hereto and made a p4n heccor. TI1e accacl,cd cdpulatloru: app_ear as 1
page h~ca(ter.
Tally weight cickcu will be required (O be rurnuhed (o the Aii<hOri'Zed O(f:cr4 Wcl'ghts will
be m.icfc oC linishod product at certilicd scales. at d,c pit site or another ('Olli( a.pproved by
thcAuchorizcd OCliccr. All tickets ml.L~C shnw the m3tctial weight:, time of weighing and
wcishmastct's sign:1<urc, and shall also include: gross weight. rare weight and e2ilcul~ted nct
wclghc unlc.ss ano<her method oC the wc,ghinc is approved by the Auchocized Offioa". All
wd;hu will bc auachcd to a monthly reporting form (Exhibit B). Each repor( Conn a.nd
atu1chcd weight tidcet.s shall be $Cnl lo the Authorized Omcer no Later than 10 days .a(ceithe report month.
The Authorized Office:(' may grant an extension or lime up co ooe yc.:i.r in accordance with
11~ regulations in c.ompensacion for periods o( mine plan review exc.c;c.dillG six months OC"
lcsal challenges la.sting mo,c thzm ~ix rnonth.s which inhibit futlillmen( of the contra.a: by the
Purcha$cr.
docs noc limit the Authorized Oflic.er from issuing an e1.'tension of die
comr:1ct for other reasons authorized by llic rcgul:lt~ons.
Thu
------~
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.2,pg.3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Sec. 10 Force M.31j~urc - The rurch.:isu sh.:ill no< be deemed t o be in dc(~ul< in the recform:uice o( the
tccPU of this cantrad if rurcha.ser is prcvcn<cd from sc\lCring. or tcmoving s.and ~nd cravcl from the
subject pror,cc1y, or ochcrwi~ pr=<ed (rom pecf'ocm ing the ccrms of 1he con1ract., by C.3.Ues
beyond ks con trol., including. but wit hou t bcin& limi1cd to: acu o( God or the public enemy,
interlcrencc, rulinss or clecl$ion~ by municlp:,.I, federal, stacc. <>r o<hcr tovcrnmcn1.al agcnclc~ bo:tJr<U
O<" eommisslons; any Jaw.s and/oc regulations o( such mu nicip.11, ,1:icc, rcdcral, oc other governmental
bodies; aod ~ u.suophc resulting Crom flood, rice, CX(\l~ion, o c o< hct causes beyond the coo<rol oC
the Pucdia.scr. {( :iny o( the. sta.tcd con<ingcncies O(Cur. Pu rchaser shall immediately civc the
.Au1hotlud omc:er written 11o<iec o( d,c:: a.use o( Che dch,.y o( proclue1ion o r ~rf0<ma.nec, The
Purch:a.s.ci" i( dd:iycd by force majcure ,h11U ase rcason:iblc diligence: to c.orrce< dw: <:aU$e oC delay, if
cottccUble, 11nd if cllc condicloa ch.le c a ~ the dd11.y is eocreacd., Purchue< shalt inuniiucly give
the Authorized .O mcu written aoci<c t bc.reo( and shall ,~umc operations under dus -fuacraa. l{ ~
coQdicioa cha.c.cu:scd ,he delay eanno< be eom::a:cd within six months despite rc:asona.b!c diligence
by tbc P ucdiaser to c:orrt the condition, Chen tbe Pcuchaser m11.y the.teaf<ec clt to lminate chis
(:()(\tract wid,ouc further oblit;21Jaa by givin& Wt""iuen notice Co the Authorized Officer <tf (he clcd.ion .
to tcnnlnace. This shall be in addition co rather than in limitation of any right on the part o( Uic
Purc:hascr to see!: a rescission o( che contract 11ndcc the doctrin~ or in1possibility of performance.,
(nl$tt.l(ion o( purpasc or ochcc legal principle$ as might be applioblc.
In Witness whereof, lffc panics hci'.cto have executed this 'concr.1.d :as the dn.yfirst above written.
Purchaser
Tr~nSUl~X Corpora~ion
(Individual or finn name)
4760 Vall4y 8oulevard

I-0a Ansel cs, Cali fnrnh onn32
(Addrc.s$)
&-,_,.O~(~
D
D
D
(Date)
March 8, l 9<)0
(Dale)
tC this contr:lct is c~cutcd by a co,por..cion, i< must nmx its corpor:a~c .s<;;1,I.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.2,pg.4
D
D
D
D
Page 1 a( t
EXHIBIT A
'
Di
DI
D!
Special Stipulaiions CA:22901
1 1?c Purch:uc:r
Dislncc..
ff!U$(
comply with c(ie rules aud regulations of the Soulb Coast Air ou:ality Man:agcmenc
2. T.hc l'urcb:ucr mu~ comply with tbe rule:. a.nd regulations or the S1:11e or CaJifornia, Regional '\Vatcr Quality
Control Bo&rd, Lo$ An.selcs Region.
3, The Purch:uer must cornpfy with tlu: Sc:ice. p( ~lifomia Mining and Reclam.i.tfon Aa..
-4. The ru,ehascr mu.u c.amply wich boch the~ oC June 21. 1949 (30 U.S.C. 54) and Section 9 of the Act oC
December 29, 1916 (39 S1..a.t, 864 ; ,43 U.S.C. 299),
S. fo aecordanc.c with cite r~llltiOl1$ at "3 CFR 3602.1-1 and 3602.1-2, mini11g aiid recla~adoq ptaJs ,hall be
s.ubmiued co che Authodzcd Officer. Opera<ioa.c \llill. aot c.omniene<: uncil ,i~(ics proposed ia the ruining and
rcclam a1 ion plan are approved by the Auchorit.ed Omcec. S ubmissioa o( the mlniag and rcdam.ttlon pl!D cnus<
~ in accordlO.ce wich the rc&1,1ladoa.s at "'3 Cf'R. 3602..1-1 and 3601.1-2. Th,e plans must Include mcuurc.:s to
prevcn< hou..r<ls to public hc.41(.b a.11d uieJ:y o.nd me35ures to p~~nt unne~uy and tinduo detr~1atloa as.
delined ar "3 CFR 3600.0-S(k).
d, l"rior co new surface discurbance Co, pit upusioo, a.a archaeologleal survey inust be completed for tbc :uea
to be disturbed .&.t the Putchas,ec's expense.. It may be expcdienl to survey the enthe 6'IO aacs :at oaee to a.void
Cuturc delays. National Register quality propenies, mould aa.y exist on die sale pared, must bo ~er avoided
oc mitigated through d.ata ceoovery a< the Purchasus expense. SuNcy, cvalll:ltion. wid 11CCC$Sat)' a1itisatfoa will
meet BLM llpptov.aJ uid wiU be pcri'onued ia. accordance: wi(h th~ pcovi.sioN of Sccoon 106 oC the Natloaal
Hi.stone l'raervacion Ad aad iu implcmcu<iog rcgulattons: (36 ~ Pan. xi).
1. Prior to new surucc distucbuc:e Coe.pie ~m:asioa. a suncy must be completed at-the Pu.rcb~s cxpen~ on
the ar~ below &11 clc:vaciol\ 2000 recc, appco,a.m.11<ely 2S acres., to de<ennioc wbc4tc.c che plant spc,aes OC' 1\a~1<~(
oC Nevill's barberry (Mabonia ~ ) is present. Any o( chc :Surveyed a.tea found to be habit.al for chis cpeocs
ml1$L either (1) noc be dis<urbcd by a.oy a.ctl\ity Ut<>Ciated witli the open.lion, or (2) be mitigated by measures
indudcd in the mi.niag and redamatioa. plan and approved by the Authorized Officer.
8. No porcion of unmined rnalerial of the coal.race amount oC conlrAct CA-20139 will be appfied to contracc
CA-ll90l.
D
D
-------- -------- -- -- . - -
Kirkmyer Deel.
--~----
____ _________________
..
Ex.2,pg.5
D
D
D
D
D
EXHIBIT B
BUREAU OF U\NO MANAGEMENT
California Dcscn District
D
D
D
0
0
Palm Spcings-South Coul R C$0uc~ .ArQ
400 s~. Farrell Drive, Suite 8 -205

Palm Sprin~ Cdifomia 92262
PRODucnoN RE PORT FOR MONTH ENDING - - - - - - - - - - S9_ _ _ _ _ _ __

PURCHASER
CONT'RACTNUMBE.n. - ~ - - - - - ~ ~~ ~ - : - - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - - . -~ - -- ~
OUAfITITY REMOVED - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -....:...------
SIGNED_ _ _ _ __
)
Attach copies of alt wcletic tickets for the reporting period.
The Uctlrcd su,u C rtmla al Code (18 u .s.c. IQOl) r,\.lkcc k cn<r\111.cl offe('.-c 10 -illCvtty Make tts.c. ~cCffleat or rcpc=cat~o. co
&!\)' Skpr,ftffle11r or A~r,,:y of 1tw: Unh~ Su ecc a, -o any rn&t1cr -.ich{n ~ J\lcud'oalon. Jvty pc rroa or pcl'SO<\C maldfti a (al,c note....,..,
o ~ "Pt'CkllUtioA hU 1>c ... bjccc 10 Ci11c o( up ro Sl0,000 an4 lmpnsocimc,,u Co ~ vp 10 CtYC )'Cus (ot" each c,CTcn.cc.
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.2,pg.6
United States Department of the Interior

California Desert District
D
D
D
D
Record of Decisf on
for the
Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
Los Angeles County, California
Preparod by;
o,

Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office
BLM Case File No. CA-22901 and CA-20139

OEPC #DES-99-13 and #O.ES-99-57
OEPC #FES-00-18
AUG O I 2000
Approved by:
Tim Salt, District Manager
Callfornfa Desert District
Kirkmyer Deel.
Date
Ex.3,pg. 1
0
0
D
D
0
0
D
D
D
D

Record of Decision
for the
Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
Prepared by:
United States Department of t~e Interior
Callfornla State Office
Palm Springs-South Coast Field
.. Office
D
D
D
SLM Case File No. CA-22901 andCA-20139

OEPC #DES-99-13 and #O_ES-99-57
OEPC #FES-00-18
AUG O1 2000
Approved by:
Tim Salt, District Manager
Kirkmyer Deel.
Date
Ex.3,pg.2
Rl!cord of Dec.sion for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel M1nlng Project
Paac 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[X CUTIVE SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DECISION
DI
DI
DI'
l
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
10
MANAGl::MENT CONSIDERATIONS
13
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . .
20
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS PROCESS
22
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Mitigation and Monitoring Program
Appendix 8:
"A Contract for the Sale of Unts of Materials" (BLM Contract No.
CA-22901, dated March 9, 1990)
"A Contract for the Sale of Units of Materials" (BLM Contract No.
CA-20139, dated March 9, 1990)
Arpendix C:
.
Biological Op:nion for Transit Mixed Concrete's Application to Mine Sand
and Gravel in Soledad Canyon, Los Angeles County, CA (1-8-96-F-41)
Appendix D:
Findings and Determinations for Historic Proportios
TABLES and FIGURES
Figure 1:
Location Map for tho Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining
Project
Table 1:
Kirkmyer Deel.
Additional Agency Approvals and Review
Ex.3,pg.3
D
D
D
D
D
0
Rocord of Decision for lhe Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel M n
nuProfeel
Page ~I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document, prepared by !he U.S. Department ot the Interior Bureau of Land
Management(BLM), is the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Soledad Canyon Sand
and Gravel Mining Project. This ROD is prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Title 40 or tho Code ot Federal Regulations Parts
1505 and 1506.
It is BLM's decislon lo approve the Reduced North Fines Storage Area (NFSA)
alternative with additional environmental modifications as described further in this ROD
and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Ft:IS) published py BLM on June 2,
2000.
This decision directs the mannor in which the Transil Mixed Concrete Company (TMC)
is authorized lo extract a total of 78 million tons of material and ~o produce and sell
D
D
D
D
approximately 56.1 milllon tons of sand and gravel in the Soledad Canyon area of
northeastern Los Angeles County, California over a 20-year period in conformance with
Federal contracts issued by BLM to TMC in 1990. TMC will operate a concrete batch
plant to produce and deliver ready-mixed concrete to sa tisfy the substantial demand for
these resources in the greater Los Angeles market area . A map is attached for
reference (Figure 1).
As a condition of approval, TMC is required to comply with the mitigation measures
specified in Appendix A of this ROD: the provisions of the mining reclamation plan as
described in the FEIS; and the bonding requirements also specified in this ROD. In
addition, TMO must consult with and obtain approvals from the regulatory agencies
listed in Table 1 of this ROD, and any other permits or authorizations required by law.
These agencies may require additional environmental analyses and additional
mitigation measures before granting any permits.
Without permitting of new or expanded aggregate mining operations, the California
Department of Mines and Geology (COMG) predicts available sources of aggregate
reserves in the San Fernando Valley will be depleted by 2001, and Los Angeles
County's aggregate reserves wm be depleted by the year 20 16. Authorizing the project
as approved will help meet growing demand for aggregate in the local area and region.
CDMG estimates aggregate demand will be two and two-thirds times as large as
permitted reserves by the year 2044.
The Soledad Canyon area has been an important source of commercial s and and
gravel since the 1960s. The area was officially classified by lhe Stato of California as a
"A Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Area" in 1987 pursuant to
the provisions of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. The site
has previously been zoned by the.County of Los Angeles to permit mining and several
sand and gravel mining or aggregate processing operations are currently being
conducted close to the site. BLM's South Coast Resource Manageme nt Plan for this
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.4
Ancord of Dcci~ion lor the Soledad Cnnyon Sand and Gravel Mining Projuc/
Page4
ama, finaljznd in 199'1, also determined that continued aggregate mining was an
appropriate land use aclivity in the Soledad Canyon area.
1he FEIS considered eighl alternatives described further in this ROD. The RHduced
NFSA alternative w ith additional modifica tions was chosen because it permits tho
oconomic development of tho Federal mineral resource with tho least environmenlal
impacts. BLM carcfully considered all reasonable and practical means lo minimize
adverse environmonlal impacts to air quality, public hoalth and safely, wator resources,
trartic congestion, noise, visual quality and wildlife, including listed threatened or
endangered species as described further Jn this ROD.
D
l
Key provisions of the Reduced NFSA alternative, as modified in this decision, include:
D
D
/\ conveyor belt transport system has been added, which will decreaso truck
traffic, resulting in a significant reduction in PM-10 (air emissions) .
The mine cut will be deeper, therefore allowing for additional storage at the mine
silo instead of the north fines storage area.
Hnos (mine waste) will not be stored on the north side of the mountain until year
15 or the contract period instead of year one as originally proposed.
There will be a 50 percent reduction of rines in north f1nes storage area.
Tho ridgeline reduction that will occur as a result of mining will ho 80 to 150 feet
ins tead of lho 120-230 feel presented in the original proposal.
Because of the size of the Soledad Canyon Project, th e complexity of the regulatmy
network in Los Angeles County and California, and the pu!Jllc concerns raised about the
environmental impacts of this project, implementation of the Mitigation and Monitoring
Program described further in ttlis ROD and in the FEIS will include an independent
compliance tracking system and periodic monitoring reports which will uc developed by
BLM in coordination with TMC and tho appropriate pcrmilling agencies.
During the environmental review process, which included publication of a Drart EIS
(May 6, 1999) and a Supplement to the Draft EIS (November 17, 1999), the combined
public comment periods provided for eight months or public review. All public
comments received on these two documents were carefully analyzed and BLM's
responses are included in the FEIS. Comments received by the Los Angeles County
Planning Commission as part of the State's separate California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) process regarding this project arc also included in the FElS with official
responses to the issues raised.
Finally, as part of the NEPA review process, SLM coordinated and consulled with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the
Southern California Association of Governments, the Governor's Office ot Planning and
Research, the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology,
tho California Department of Tmnsportation, and tho State Walor Quality Control
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.5
I
I
0l
0l
DI
0I
UI
01
0I
0I
at
0I
0I
nocnrd or Decision for the Soledad Canyon Sam1 and Gravel Mining Project
Page 5
Board: In addition, SLM and the County of Los Angeles coordinated in the preparation
of their respective NEPA and CEQA documenls.
This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the
Secretary, in accordance with the regulations at Title 43 of the Code of Federal
Regulations Part 4. Additional informa tion on the appeals process is provided furthe r
in lhis ROD.
Additional information on thls decision can be obtained from BLM's Palm Springs/South
Coast Field Office, 690 W . Garnet Avenue, P.O. Box 1260, North Palm Springs,
California, 92258, telephone 760251-4800.
DJ
0I
0I
0.1
DI
0'
J
I
t
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.J,pg.6
D
D
DI
t
\
\
-~ -J
.-,
C:i!.slaic
Aqua Dulce
Angeles N1J:llon~ Forest
L . / '-- - - .,
Dl
D!
I
I
r--.
r-
----
' - -
-'
D
D
I
r-----
Sulphw
Sptings
I
I
r----~- _J
j
r-- - - . .. ___ _J
I
L.- ---------1
I
I
I
Angeles Natian11/ Fores t
L.-. --
J_ __ _
LOCAL SETTING
Figure 1
A
N
No110 Scatc
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.7
D
D
D
RBcord ot Decision for the Soledad Canyon Sand nm1 Gravel Mining Project
Page7
JECISION
BLM approves tho following:
1.
Reduced North Fines Storage Area alternative as described in seclion

2.4.2 and 3.2.14 of the FEIS with conveyor system mitigation measure
AQ3.
2.
Mining reclamntion plar t as describod in section 2.2
3.
Mitigation and Monitoring Program included in Appendix A of this

document. All practicd means to avoid or minimize environmental harm
have been adopted.
4.
Incorporation of the h-rms and conditions prescribed by USFWS in the

Biological Opinion at ached as Appendix C or this document.
5.
Incorporation by refe rence of the requirements identified in the Habitat

Protection Plan included in the FEIS Technical Appendices F6.
D
0
D
D
D
D
or the FEIS.
Conditions of the approval

As a condition or approval, TMC is rcqufred to comply with all of tho provisions cited
above (1-5) as well as the provisions relating to the additional agency approvals and
reviews, contract compliance, monitoring requirements, and bonding requirements
di$CUssed rurthor below.
1.
ComRliance witl1 Jlher agencies' regulatory requirements
TMC must consult with and obtain approvals from the regulatory agencies listed in
Table 1 on the roUowing page, and oblain any olhor permits.or authorizations required
by law. Theso agencies may require additional environmental analyses before granting
any permits.
II
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.8
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
necord ol Dm:ision for Um Solmfad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
.
T a ble 1: A dd iltona
Aqe ncv A ~rovals and Reviews
AGENCY
APPROVAL or REVIEW
County of Los Any olcs
Los Angeles County Departmcnl

Local Enforcemcnl Agency
..California Department
- of Mines and Geology
- Surfaco Mining Pormit

- Aec:lamation Plan & flnancial Assurance
Building Permits
- Code Compliance
- C EQA Compliance
ot Hcallh,
or Consorvallon, Division
- Hazardous Materials Handler Permit
- Aoviow Surface Mining & Reclamation Plan

- Review o/ Financial Assurance
California Regional W ater Quality Control Board

- Los Angeles Region
- General Industrial Activities Stormwater Permit

pursuant lo the N ational Pollutant D ischarge
Eliminalion System
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Calilornia State W aler Resources Control Board
- Permit to Appropriate Water
South Coast Air Quality Management District
- Permits for Fueling and Maintenance Facilities,

Equipment Operations, Dust Em issions Discharge
U.S. Departm1mt ol the Army, Cnrps of

Engineers
Stlction 404 Clean Water Act Pmmll
California Department of F ish and Game
- Section 1603 Stream/Lake Alteration Permit
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Opinion
2.
D
D.
DI
Page 8
Terms of lh_o contracts
Compliance wiih the terms and stipulations listed in the two contracts BLM awarded to
TMC by competitive bid on March 9, 1990 (Contract No. CA-22901 and Contract No.
CA-20139) is required. Copies of the two TMC contracts are provided in Appendix B.
As part of tho contracts granting TMC the right to produce 56. 1 million tons of Federallyowned sand and gravel, TMC is required to pay the Federal government a minimum of
$28 million jn royalties. S eventy-six (76) percent of the royalties ($21.28 million) will go
to the Federal Land and Reclamation Fund, 20 percent ($5.6 million) to tho Fede ral
treasury, and four percent ($1.12 million) to the State ot California, or which half
($560,000) will go to the County of Los Angeles
3.
Monito~i_og__8equirements
Because of the size of the Soledad Canyon Projecl, the complexity of the regulatory
network in Los Angeles County and California, and the public concerns raised about the
environmental impacts of this project, implementation of the Mitigation and Monitoring
Program described above and in the FEIS will in dude provision for an independent
compliance tracking system and periodic monitoring repons to ho dnvolopmi in
coordination with TMC and the appropriata pnrmilting agencies.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.9
D
D
0
D
0
D
0
D
D
0
nucorcJ of Decis.i<Jn for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
4.
Pagc9
Bonding Requirements
In accordance wilh Federal, Stale and County regulations and policy, TMC is required
to provide financial assurances that reclamation of mining sites will occur. Federal
regulations require that a performance bond amounting to 20 percent of the contract
value be deposited with the BLM. In this case, the first Federa l contract value (for the
first phase of the project) is equal to $7 million. The required bond amount is calculated
as $7 million x .20 = $ 1.4 million, which is the penal sum of bond 526-09-34. Moreover,
in accordance with the Memorandum of Underslanding (MOU) entered into by the State
of California and the BLM, the State ot California has agreed that "Any federally
required financial assurance may be used to satisfy local and State surety
requirements" (California Department of Conservation - Division of Mines and Geology,
et al. 1992). In accordance wilh the MOU, the State of California has already agreed
that the Performance and Reclart,lation Bond submitted by TMC to the .BLM with regard
to this proJecl (Bond Number 526-09-34) may bo used to satisfy State of California and
County requirements for the financial assurance of the Reclamation Plan; however, the
County has tho authority to require additional bonding if deemed necessary. This bond
was submitted to the SLM in March 1990. Subsequently, in April 1992, a co-obligee
rider was attached to and became a part of Bond 526-09-34, naming the State Mining
and Geology Board and the County as additional ohligees. In April 1992, this rider was
acknowledged and accepted by the BLM authorized office r and was submitted by TMC
to the County with a request tha~ the County submit the bond to the Slate for review
and approval.
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg. 10
D
[)
Record of Decision for lhe Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
Page 10
ALTERNATIVES CONSl,DEAED
Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
D
I
Eight alternatives were considered in detail in tho FEIS. These alternatives are
summarized below.
1
TMC's Proposed Action
TMC's proposed mining plan would have extracted a total or 83 mi.Ilion tons of malerial,
. and produced approximately 56.1 million tons of sand and gravel over a 20ycar period.
.:The proposed action included plans lo operate a concrete batch plant producing ready. mixed concrete and to deliver readymixed concrete to the local markets within the
. greater Los Angeles area.
2.
q
'
Reduced North Fines Storage Area Aflernative
Under this alternative, the volume and area of the NFSA will be reduced by using a
different approach to the mining cut sequonco than the proposed action. This approach
will result in a 50 percent reduction of fines inlo the NFSA. The ridgeline reduction will
be 80 150 feet as compared lo 120230 feel in the proposed action. The total product
shipped will remain at 56.1 million Ions. All other aspects of the operation and
reclamation plans will remain as described for the proposed action. This alternative,
with the addition or a conveyor belt system mitigation measure which will reduce PM10
(air quality) emissions, was identified in the FEIS as the agency's preferred alternative.
3.
Batch Plant Location Alternative
This alternative oxaminod locating lhe batch plant nea r Lang Station adjacent to the
intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and tho Antelope Valley Freeway. This would
have required delivering aggregate to the plant by trucks.
D
0
4.
Reclaimed Water J\lternative
This alternative considered use of other water sources such as reclaimed water. The
nearest existing potential sources of reclaimed water that could serve the project arc
County wastewater treatment plants located in Palmdale, Saugus, and Valencia.
Presently, no largescale reclaimed water systems are known tu be available in the
Santa Clarita Valley.
5.
ProduGt Transportation Alternative
rhis alternative considered construction of a conveyor system, loading facility and rail
spur to an existing rail line south the project site. The conveyor system would havo
been constructed to go under Soledad Canyon Road to the loading facility for
transporting ayyregate product from the site to the Los /\ngeles marl~el.
of
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.11
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Record ul Decision for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Projccl
6.
Alternalive North Fines Storaqe Area Alternative
This alternative considured an allernalc NFSA immediately north of the proposed

project fines storage site and adjacenl to the Antelope Valley Freeway. This allernativo
had the objective of providing the required fines storage area with polentially less
impact on possible fulure uses in Bee Canyon. All other mining operations would have
remained tho same as those of the proposed action.
7.
Reduced Quantity Mining ConcepJ Alternative
Under this alternative, mining activity would have progressed in a manner similar to the
proposed aclion excepl that mining activity would have been curtailed after completion
of up to 50 percent of Cut 3, which would have avoided the lowering of the northeastsouthwest ridgeline that occurs through the completion of Cuts 3 and 4 of the proposed
mining plan. This alternative involved mining 47 million tons of material to produce
32 million tons of sand and gravel, significantly lower than the contract amount.
8.
Page 1-1
No Action Altern ative
With this alternative, no mining and reclamation plan would bo approved at this time.
Since the surface is privately ownod, the properly may be used for other purposes, but
not for sand and gravel mining of the Federal resources. In its currenl stale, there is
an existing quarry as well as stockpiles at the project site. The no action alternative is
the environmentally preferable alternative.
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
D
D
Several other alternatives were considered during scoping wtlich wore not analyzed in
detail in the EIS because they were nol feasible. These are summarized below.
Nine alternative potenlial mining si(es were considered as sources of sand and gravel
prior to selection of tho Soledad Canyon site. Two potential mining silos north of
Redlands in western San Bernardino Counly were dropped from consideration due to
the presence of threale.ned and endangered species in the mining area and designation
of the area by BLM as an Area ot Critical Environmental Concern. Two sites near
Corona in northern Riverside Counly were rejected due to presence of threatened and
endangered species, and nigh royally requiremenls relative to low material quality. Two
sites in southern Orange County off Ortega Highway were dropped from consideration
because of questionable material quality, impacls to sensitive habitats, and excessive
dislance from the primary target market, resulting in high hauling costs and excessive
air quality impacts. A site near the town of Littlerock In Antelope Valley was determined
infeasible also due to excessive distance from the primary target market. The Moorpark
site in Venlura County is owned bl[ TMC and was considered as an alternative;
however, lhis site contains a high amount of sand (88 percent) and could not produce
enough gravel without excessive mining to supply the primary target market. One
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.12
D
D
Record of Decision tor tho S11lodad Canyon S,md and Gravel Mining Project
Pago12
mining sito in !he Angolcs National Forest was considered and thon droppod from
detailed analysis due to low material qunlity nnd lack of acr.oss.
Anolhcr mining concept considered production or' 170 million tons of s,md and gravel
versus 56 million tons, by mining the entire ridge from the top down . Adverse impacts
to mos! resources would havo been incrementally greater than the 56 million ton
alternative.
Another alternative proposed dtsposing of lhe excess fines at regional landfills rather
than onslte. However, this would hr.1ve resulted in significant impacts to public services
since most landfills are near capacity and do not need fill material. Also, the impact or
hauling fines to landfills on air quality and traffic would have been substantially greater,
and was not considered economicalfy feasiblo.
r
L
i,
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.13
D
D
0
Rer.ord or Decision lor tho Soludad G.lnyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
Page 13
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
D
D
D
D
D
After close examination of the findings of the analysis and the resulls of public review,
and after consultati on with other agencies and local governments, the Reduced North
Fines Storage Area (NFSA) alternative, as modified, was selected because it provides
for the economic development of an important mineral resource while reducing
identified environmental impacts to an acceptable level. Mitigation measures have
been adopted to ensure that all reasonable means to avoid or reduce environmental
harm have been incorporated into lhe project as approved by this decision. This
decision is consistent with the BLM's South Coast Resource Management Plan (1994),
as well as Los Angeles County's zoning for the area. A summary of management
consideralions which includes economic, environmental and administrative factors
considered is presented below.
Soledad Canyon has been an important commerci~I supply of minerals since the
1960's. The area is de signated by the Stato and zoned by Los Angeles County for
sand and gravel extraction and processing. Since the 1960's the area has supplied
high quality mineral commodities for the Los Angeles market. Moreover, these mineral
resources are extremely .valuable since the market is located close to the production
area, significantly reducing haul costs and air emissions.
The Soledad Canyon mining site is considered suitable for mineral extraction.
Tho area is considered suitable for mineral extraction activitres because it will:
Provide a reliable and economically sound source of construction minerals

primarily for development within the Santa Clarita Valley and the greater
Los Angeles area.
Develop a source or ready-mixed concroto for the Santa Clarita Valley.
Develop construction mineral reserves in an area designated as a
"Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Area" by the State of
California.
Provide a minimum of $28 million in royally payments lo the Federal
government, wlth a portion to be shared with the State of California and
Los Angeles County.
B e located within a historic mining area.
Project helps meet aggregate supply need. The California Division of Mines and
Geology (CDMG) in a 1994 Mineral Land Classification Report and in a 1999 Los
Angeles Aggregate Resources S1udy es timates that:
Current permitted reserves in the San Fernando ProdUction~Consumption

Region wlll be depleted by year 2001.
Current permitted re~erves in Los Angeles Count y will be depleted by year
2016.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.14
D
D
Record of Decision fur Um Soledad Cunyun Sanrl and Gravnl Mining Projecl
D
0
Pilge 14
Authorizing the project as approved will help meet growing demand tor
aggregate in tho local area and region. CDMG estimates aggregate
demand will be two and two-thirds times as large as permitted rm;erves by
the year 2044.
In 1997, 36 millions tons of aggregate were utilized in Los Angeles County
(approximately 2.5 tons per person)
50 percent or all aggregate produced is for public works projects and is
paid for using tax dollars.
The average cost ot a ton of aggregate doubles when hauled a distance
of 35 mllos.
It takes as much as 200,000 tons of aggregate to build one mile of a
eight-lane highway.
..
Consider[ng theso depletion ~ates and expected demand, if this project were not
approved, these materials would have to come from more distant l:?OUrces. This would
increas e the cost to taxpayers by as much as an additional $3 to $4 a ton in
transportation cost and possibly even more due a decrease in supply. Thereroro,
additional taxpaye r cost to use more distu nt sources would be $75 to $100 milllon
dollars over the 20-year life of tho projoct. A similar cost increase would accrue to
private c ustornors using sand and gravel resources.
The approximale time to bring a mino on line is six to nine years. The cost and time
r~quirements of opening a new mine continue to increase. At a consumption rate of 36
million tons annually in Los Angeles County, the aggregate source.at Soledad Canyon
wmhelp in preventing material shortages in tho near future and will hold down
construction cost for Los Angelos County public works projects.
Project as approved is.in conformance .with BLM land use plan. In accordance
w ith T itle 43 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1610.5-3, lhe project as approved is in
conformance with the BLM's South Coast Resource Management Plan (June 1994).
On page 16, the plan states: "Unless specitica!ly prohibited by existing or' future
withdrawal, BLM split estate lands are available for mineral material ~ales." No
withdrawals are proposed or in effect in the project area .
Land use is consistent with State and County plans. The proj ect site is located in a
"Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Area," designated by the
California S tate Mining and Goology Board per the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
. of 1975 (SMARA). The project site is zoned M-2 for heavy manufacturing by the
County. Mineral extraction is a permitted 1,1se for sites zoned M"2.
. Whilo the Los Angeles County Planning Commission voted on December 1, 1999 lo
deny TMC's permit request, that decision ha s been appealed to the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors. As of the date of this ROD, no final determination on the
riroioc t has been made by Los Angeles County.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex. 3, pg. 15
Record of Decision
''
lhe Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
Page 15
Air quality impacts arc in conformance with Federal and State standards . The
project as approved conforms with all applicable local, Stale and Federal laws,
regulations and statutes pertaining to air qualily. Notice of tho final conformity
determination was made to the applicable agencies and to the public on June 21, 2000.
Both the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) concurred that the conformity determination was
appropriate and that the pro;ect was consistent with the population and growth
projections developed by SCAG and used in lhe 1994 State Implementation Plan and
1997 Air Quality Management Plan. On July 11, 2000, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency also reviewed and concurred with BLM's final conformity
determination for this project.
D
D
D
D
D
The project as approved includes a series of mitigation measures, based on modeling

conducted in coordination with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which
reduce air quality impacts per National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Emissions below tho NAAQS are considered sale, providing an adequate margin of
safety to protoct the public health and welfare, including risks associated with dustinduced respiratory ailments, specifically, Valley Fever, asthma, silicosis, and
conjunctivitis.
Furthermore, BLM consulted with the Valley Fever Center for Excellence, localed in
Tucson, Arizona to determine relative risk of the Project site as a contributor to Valley
Fever. If was concluded that this risk is low because the project is located largely in an
area or previous disturbance and a relatively small amount of topsoil will be disturbed.
Moreover, the project is located on the south side of the ridge, which receives strong,
direct sunshine that destroys the viability of Valley Fever spores in topsoil.
Mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts include minimizing truck idling, using
a covered conveyor system to lransport fines and rmnimize the use of trucks, watering
al the site, using chemical dust suppressants, using reformulated, low-emission diesel
fuel, and several others as specified in this ROD under Appendix A, Mitigation and
Monitoring Program.
Puplic health and safety are protected. Although mining has occurred in Soledad
Canyon since the 1960's, land use in the area has been changing over the past 1O
years to accommodate increased suburban housing development. Of primary concern
for BLM was whether or not a reasonable mining and reclamation plan could be
developed without significantly affecting the nealth and safety of the current and future
residents. Based on coordination and fact-finding with agencies and organizations
including the South Coast Air Qualtty Management District, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the SCAG, and the Valley Fever Center for Excellence; the project
as approved, provides the best option_for avoiding significant effects to the health and
safety of !he local residents, while .still developing a valuable mineral resource.
D
OJ
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex. J,pg.16
D
D
D
q
D
0 -
HecorcJ of Deci:.ion tor tho Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravol Mlninri Project
Patio 16
In ordor lo furthor minimize any potential hazards to public health and safety, a number
of milfgntion measures will be implemented, including: 1) Public access will be
ros triclcd to roduce potenlial for accidents by a) fencing the active mining area anc:I
panting tiiyns restricting access to the project site, and b) installing a gale to the facility
to control public access; 2) Strict compliance with all regulations and requirements orthe Office of Safety and Health Administration, lhe Mine Safoty and Health
Administration, all applicable County 1994 Uniform Fire codes, and other applicable
safety rogulalions and emergency plans; and 3) TMC will not remove topsoil on high
wind da ys.
r
'
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Water resources are protect~d. TMC has secured legal rights to utilize water from
lhe alluvial aquifer of the Santa Clara River south of the project site to support the
mining project. TMC has entered into a lease agreement with C.A. Rasmussen Co.
allowing TMC to utilize Rasmussen's riparian rights lo water. There are existing wells
on tho Rasmussen property that have boen used to extract water in accordance with
Rasmussen's riparian rights. TMC has also applied to the State Water Quality Control
Board for a permit to appropriate additional water from lhe Santa Clara River.
A jurisdictional analysis or the project site by the U.S. Army Corps or Engineers
(USAGE) was reques ted by BLM on July 14, 2000 to ensure compliance with tho Clean
Water Act. The USAGE concluded that tho project would require a Section 404 permit,
due to the presence of al least two small, unnamed ephemera Vinte rmiltent streams
which exhibit physical evidence of seasonal storm flow. Further discussions between
BLM and lhe USACE concluded that the potential impacts to .waters or the U.S. are not
likely to be signiHcant; therefore an EIS is not required for Section 404 roview. In total,
approximately half an acre of U.S. waters would be disturbed. Moreover, tho FEIS
concludes that no wetlands occur in the mlning operation area and potential. significant
irnpacls lo waler quality will be avoided.
Traffic impacts are minimized. Overall, the project as approved will generate 347
trucks making round trips from and lo the site each day in the first 1O years, and
increasing lo 582 trucks in the second 1O years. During morning and afternoon peak
trafiic hours in the second 10 years of mining, 43 and 24 truck roundtrips to the
Antelope Valley Freeway would be generated, respectively. These volumes are well
below the 150 peak hour trip criteria per County guldeiines from the 1997 Los Angeles
County Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (Department of Public Works) and the Los
Angeles Congestion Management Program, indicating that the project would not
significa ntly impact the freeway system. Currently, the California Department of
Transportation estimates there are 76,000 average daily trips on the Antelope Valley
Freeway during a typical workday. The project (using the highest number of trucks
estimated and factoring in the impacts of trucks vs. passenger vehicles) would increase
this volume by about 1.5 percent. Traffic additions to freeways beyond the Antelope
Valley rreeway as a result of the project would be less than in the immediate area, and
arc tl1eroforo also well below the Los Angeles CMP impact lhresholds.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.17
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rrn:ord of Decision lor the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
Pago 17
Adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitat

minimized. Consistent with the Biological Opinion (BO) for this project
(FWS #1-8-96-41), a SLM-approved Habltat Protection Plan outlines mitigation
measures and a moniloring program to protect sensitive ecological habitats in the
project vicinity, including unarmored threespine s tickleback habitat (UTS; Gasterosteus
aculeatus wil/iamsom). Specifically, TMC must cease or curtail water extraction if two of
lour aclion lovels are exceeded. These action levels include water temperature, oxygen
level, stream depth and stream flow. In addition, TMC will be bound by permit
conditions of its SWRCB permit to appropriate water, as well as the terms of the Water
Shortage Contingency Plan submilled to the SWRCB Division of Water Rights.
In addition, several recent listings and critical habitat proposals or designations have
been made since the BO was issued. Descriptions of those listings and designations
and their relationship to the project follow.
The Santa Ana sucker, which was federally listed as threatened on April 12, 2000,
occurs in various locations along the Santa Clara River upstream from River's End
Tra iler Park, which is at the west end of the proposed mining site. The Santa Clara
River populatron was excluded from the Federal listing because it is considered _to be
an introduced population. Therefore, the provisions of Sectron 7 of tho Endangered
Species Act are not applicable to lhis population.
The coastal California gnatcatcher was listed as nn endangered species on March 30,
1993, and 15 critical habitat units were proposed for this species on February 7, 2000.
There are no known occurrences of the coastal California gnatcatcher on the project
site and it is considered to have low potential for supporting this species. The nearest
proposed critical habitat unit is approximalely two miles from the project site. BLM has
lherefore determined that the activilies associated with the Soledad Canyon mining
project will have no effect on the coastal Callfornia gnatcatcher or its proposed critical
habitat.
..
The arroyo soulhweslern toad was Usted as an ondangered.species on December 16,
1994, and 21 crilical habitat units were proposed for this species on February 16, 2000.
There are no known occurrences of the arroyo southwestern toad on the project site.
The closest proposed critical habitat unit is the upper Santa Clara River unit, which
includes a reach of the Santa Clara River from Bee Canyon downstream to the
confluence with Castaic Creek. The proposed upper Santa Clara River critical habitat
unit is more than one mile downstream from the project site. Because of the measures
prescribed in FWS #1-8-96-F-41 to maintain water quality and quantity in the immediate
vicinity of lhe project site, BLM has determined that the activities associated with the
Soledad Canyon mining project will not destroy or adversely modify proposed critical
habitat for the arroyo southwestern toad.

The Southern California Evolutionarily Signiffcanl Unit (ESU) of steelhead was listed as
an endangered species on August 18, 2 000, and critical habila t was designated tor this
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg. 18
o
D
D
D
D
O
D
Record of Decision for tho Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Prujocl
Pagn Hl
ESU on February 16, 2000. Si:~hydrologic units wore designated as crilic-'11 habitat for
the Southern Cali fornia ESU, ind uding one (Hydrologic Unit 11 18070102) for ll1e Santa
Clara River system. Primary constituent elernenls for tho designated crflical habitat
include: spawning sites, load resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian
vegetation.
The nearest known occurrence of steelhead in the Santa Clara River system is more
than 30 miles downstream from the project site in Ventura County. Because of the
long distance between the neares: occupied habitat and tho project site, the intermittent
nature ol the Santa Clara River downstream from the projecl silo (the riverbed is dry for
several month$ of the year from Mml Canyon lo Interstate 5), and the measures
prescribed in FWS #1-8-96-F-41 tc maintain water quality and quantity in the immediate
vicinity of the project site, BLM has determined that the activities associated with the
Soledad Canyon mining project will have no effect on the Southam California steolhead
ESU or i ts designated crilical habitat
Blasting impacts are minimized. Jn order to efficiently e xcavate the tightly

compacted sand and gravel conglom erate, a program of low-yield blasting will be
implemented to loosen tile material. Commentators raised concerns about l>lasling
impacts.
D
D
The effects and characteristics of blas :lng have been studied by various researchers
and governmental agencies, and standards have been established to limit the effects
that blasting may have on surrounding areas. The three main effe~ts that potentially
result from blasting include ground vibri1lion, airbJast and flyrock. The Department of
the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and EnforcemP.nt (OSMAE)
addresses these aspects in regulatlons ,JoveJopcd to provide adequate protection lo
receptors. oue to lhe placement of charges underground, and the brief duration or the
blas t, blasting evenls will not significantly raise the community noise equivalent level.
Overall, blasting noise impacts will be minimal.
Analyses presented in the FEIS conclucJed that hlast induced ground vibralions are well
below the vibration significance criteria, resulting in an impact that would not damage
.residential structures. However, TMC will be required to conduct a public awareness
program that notifies local residences and businesses w ithin a half mile of t/1e blast of
the blasting schedule and olher facels relr1tnd lo blasting.
..
..
1.'
Compliance with OSMRE standards for blasting operations will provide adequate
protection to receptors from airblast and flyrock. The intervening ridgeline al the project
site will also substantially minimize any airblast irnpacls. Compliance with the OSMRE
standards will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than s1gnific.:int, and is
required as a condition of approval for this Projecl by SLM.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.19
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Record ol Decision lor the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Minrng Project
Page 19
Visual impacts are reduced. The project as approved will reduce significant visual
impacts by requiring mitigation measures that will result iri tho ridgellne being lowered
by 80-150 feet rather than 120~230 feet as in the original proposed action. Mitigation
measures such as 1) concurrent reclamation/revegetation, and 2) recontouring to mimic
oxisUng topography, will help to reduce and minimiz~ these impacts. The visual impact
of lowering the local ridge line is not miligablc to tczs than significant; however after
reclamation over time, these mitigation measures will help to reduce the significance of
these impacts. An additional mitigation measures includes the use of specially
designed lighting systems 10 direct lights to spocHic areas, thus preventing stray lighting
from spilling onto surrounding areas or upward.
Cultural resources and historic properties avoided. The project site was surveyed
in compliance with BLM Class /II level standards CEQA, and a report was subsequently
produced by Roderic McLean in 1990 titled "A Cu tural Resource Assessmont of a 460~
Acre Parcel in Soledad Canyon, California" publit hed in Santa Ana, California by
Chambers Group Inc. The report identified and B earded two historic period
archaeological sites. One site was determined to be outside the area of potential
ertect, and a determination of eligibility is not required. The other site is located within
the area of potenlial effect. Upon review of the information contained in the report,
BLM concluded that no associative values were identified in the cultural resources
study, and the informative values are considered limited and not significant This site
was determined to be not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Therefore, the BLM detennines that there will be no historic properties affected by this
project (See Appendix 0).
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.20
D
D
o
0
0
--!--
!
I
f
t
Record of Decision for thn Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining ProJncl
Page 20
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Opportunities for Public Participation

The BLM made a diligent effort lo involve the public lhroughoul the environmental
review process. Tho public was formally notified of BLM's intent to prepare an
E nvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Soledad Canyon sand and
gravel mJning Project on October 16, 1995 when notice-was published in the Federal
Register. A BLM news release was also issued lo local media organizations on
October 25, 1995. Following Identification of issues during the public scoping process,
consultation w ith appropriate agencies, and gathering of detailed resource data,
preparation of the. Draft EIS was ,initialed.
i
i
!
'
On May 6, 19991 BLM publrshed the draft EIS on the propos ed mining and reclamation
plan filed by TMC. That publication initiated a 60-day public comment period through
July 5, 1999, which was later extended in response to public roquests until September
13, 1999 to coincide with the closing of the County's public comment period. The
County's comment period was conduclod based on a separate draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIA) whrch was prepared in accordance w ith tho CEQA.
During the Federal public comment period, BLM held two public hearings on June 2,
1999 at Sulphur Springs Elementary School in Canyon Country. California. The
tes timony received at these public hearings was recorded and transcribed. Those
transcriptions, along with BLM's responses lo the issues raised through public
comment, are included in the final EIS.
Arter careful review of these comments, BLM decided to prepare and pul>lish a
supplemental draft EIS to further analyze issues raised by the public, particularly air
quality impacts, and to analyze a new mitigation measure to transport fines material to
an onsile storage area via a conveyor belt system rather than open trucks as originally
propos ed. During the proparation of tho supplement, BLM extended the public
comment period on tho draft EIS until the supplement was published and underwent full
public review. That supplement was completed and published November 17, 1999,
and BLM accepted public comments on both the supplement and draft EIS until
January 10, 2000. All comments received on both documents were printed in the final
EIS, along with BLM's responses to each iss ue raised.
BLM also included in the final EIS all public comment letters received during tne public
1.:ommenl period of th e draft EIR, and the transcripts of public hearings held by 11,e Los
Angeles Planning Commission on April 2 1, 1999, May 11, 1999, July 14, 1999, and
So ptornber 22, 1999.
The final EIS included BLM's official response to eac h public la nd issue raised throu gh
the County's EIR process. Tho final EIS w~ s published on June 2, 2000.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.21
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
D
Record ol Dr.cision lor 1h11 Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mininy Project
Paun ?1
Subsequent to publication of the linal EJS, BLM received a number of additional

comments from private cilizens, local organizations, and other government entities. No
significant new issues or information were identified that would require preparation of a
supplemental EIS. These comments addressed BLM's coordination with other Federal,
State, and local governments and the administrative appeal process. Clarification of
those matters is provided below.
lnteragency Coordination
As part of the environmental review process, BLM coordinated with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA}, the South-Coast
Air Quality Management District, and the Southern California Association of
~overnments (SCAG). SCAG concluded that the final EIS appropriately considered its
comments on the draft EIS and had no further comments. SCAG also noted thal the
final EIS was regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria and published a
description of the Project in the June 15, 2000 _
I ntergovernmental Review Report. EPA
concurs with BLM's conformity determination and cited prior letters from SCAG and the
South Goast Air Quality Management District. BLM consulted with Army Corps,
resultrng in a determination ihal the project is subject to Army Corps' jurisdiction and
that a 404 permit would be required.
Coordination with County of Los Angeles

BLM and the County of Los Angeles coordinated during preparation of their respective
environmental review documents. The County's draft EIR and BLM's draft EIS wore
released concurrently for public review. BLM extended the public comment period on
the draft EIS to coincide with the County's deadline ror comments on their EIR of
Septomber13, 1999. BLM extendod the deadline again until January 10, 2000 upon
issuance of the supplement. The final EIS included all public comments received on
the draft EIR and as well as "the draft EIS and supplement. Tl1fs includes all oral
comments received at the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission
hearings and the ELM public meeting held on June 2, 1999: Los Angeles County has
not made a final decision on the project, and the matter is currently pending before the
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.22
~l
o.
q
q.
I!
Rocord o/ Docision lor lhe Soledad Canyon Sand and Grnvel Minin!I Projer.l
Pago22
I.
q
OI
O
I
'
O!
oI.
~
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS PROCESS

This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the
Socrotary, in accordance with tho regulations contained in 43 Code of Federal
Regulatlons, Part 4.
Notice or appeal
A notice of appeal must be filed with the BLM's California Desort District Office, 6221
Box Springs Boulevard, Riverside, California, 92507 within 30 days from the date public
notice of this decision is published in the Federal Register. A copy of the notice must
also be filed wilh the Office of the Regional S olicilor, U.S. Department of the Interior,
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712, Sacramento, California 95825.
An appellant has \110 option of filing tho. statement of reasons together with the notico of
apeal or fillng a separate statement of reasons for appealing wllhin 30 days as
described further below.
The appellanl has tho burden of showing that the Federal decision is in error.
Petition for a stay
If any appellant wishes 10 file a petition for a stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of
this decision during tho time tho appeal is being reviewed by the Board pursuant to Part
4, Subpart B, 4.2 1 of Tille 43, Code of Federal Regulations, the petition for a stay
musl accompany tho nolice_of appenl. A petition for a stay is required to show
sufficient Justification based on the standards listed below. Copies of the notice of
appeal and petition for a stay must be submitted to the Interior Board of Land Appeals,
Office or the Secretary, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203 and the Office
of the Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of'the Interior, 28QO ~_ottage Way, Room E~
1712, Sacramento, California 95825 at the same time tho original documents are filed
with the BLM's California Desert District Office cited above.
:..
If the appellant requests a stay, he or she has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a
stay should be granted. Except as otherwise provided by law or olher pertinent
regulations, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appear sllall show sufficient
justification based on tho Following standards: 1). The relative harm to !ho parties if the
stay is granted or denied; 2}. The likelihood or the appellant's cas e succeeding on the
merits; 3). The likelihood of immediatP. and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted;
and 4). Whether the public inlerest favors granting the stay.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3, pg.23
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
D
D
D
D
Record ol Decision for tho Solodatl Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
Pago 23
Statement of reasons
If an appellant chooses not lo provide his or her reasons for appealing at tho timo the
nolice of appeal is filed as explained above, a statement of reasons must bo filed wilh
the Interior Board of Land Appeals within 30 days after filing the notice of appeal. A
copy or the statement of reasons must also be filed with the Office of the Regional
Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1712,
Sacramento, California 95825. H the appellant fully stated his or her reaso"ns for
appealing when filing the notice of appeal, no additional statement is necessary.
D
D
D
II
II
II
II
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.24
Record ol Decision lor the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gr.::ivel M ning Proj oot
APPENDICES
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.25
D
D
D
Record ol Docision for tho Soledad Canyon Sand and G ravl~I Mining Projoc;t
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
Appendix A
Miliga1ion and Monitoring Program
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.26
.___J1~_._ 11___11 ~-- --~-
_ o _ o ..o _o
"~~o . _o - ~.o
-D
_o _o
DD .D D
Appendix A: MITIGATION and MONITORING PROGRAM

SOLEDAD CANYON SAND AND GRAVEL MINING PROJECT
Na.
Mlllci allon Measure Deserlntlon
G!!olechnical
G;.
Slope stal;li:y ir. the Nort~. Fines S:orage Area
(NFSA) will bl} obtained by cons:ructing 2: I
(rorlzontal 10 vertical) slopes at 75 percent relative
compaction and compacting IM oule~ 30 feel o~
material on the st ope to BO percent re! ative
compaction. To mitigate the potential for surtidal
instability. :he ouler lO '.eel o~ the proposed fill
s'opes will be co'lstructed w,th a soil mateial !laving
mini-num strenglh charac1eristics of cohesion equal
, to 175 pounds ;:,er square foot (psi) and angle of
interna friclion equal to 35 degrees or some othe:
alternative soil slrer.gth combina:lon that will resul: 1n
the r.,inimum racier o' sa'etv o: 1.5.
F 11slo:.e stab ,ily in tte Cut 1 rmarea w ; t be
G2.
I
ot:lair.ed by constructhg 2 .1 (h(l(izont.al to vertical)
s .o~es anc by achievi:ig 75 pe:cent relative
compacti.on . Benchas wili be consliucle: a, 15-foot
w:de and SO-loot verfcal inte:va!s. T o :niti;;ate lhe
pcten~ial for su"ic al instability, the cute 10 feel o'
lhe ;:,reposed UI sl opes will be constructed wttn a soil
materi e' havin1, m inimum strength characteristics or
i
1
cohesion equal to ; 75 psf and a;igle ol intema:
friction equal to 35 degrees or some othe: alternative
soii strength c ombinati on that wi!i result in !he
minimu'il !ac:01 of safetv of 1.5.
Uitima:ety, :rie rormer gravel pil ri gh we.Us will be
G3.
allerec to a 1.15: 1 ('.or,zontal to verti cal) siope using
15-:oo:-wids benches at 100-foot vertical intervals.
T ne :;ot:orr. cl the pit wa\ls on Iha west, ncrth.and
nc:-:heas: sides wrn be buttressed with ml to provide
11
I
a bui!er zone and increase slope stability.
I
I
Time Frame For

lmolementallon
Monilorinn AaeMv
Verlllcatlon/
Monl!o rlnci Action
ilmlna of Verlflca!ion
I
I
During mining
County of Los
Angeles Cepartl"\ert
of Public Works
Sile Pan ,eview by

Agency. Periodic lest'rg
cf !ii: materiais :o verify
strength parame:ers al
fill soi, and relat ve
compact:on by -Mc ard
reported to ager:y.
At reguta, in:er,als
thrcughc~I Project
~fetime after NFSA
constLctian uegins
I
I
i
:
J ur,ng r.ining
Coun ty or Los
A,.geles Departrient
ol Publ c Works
Site Plan review by

Agency. Pericd:c i esting
of fill materials to veri'y
strength parar.ete:s or
fill soll ar.d :elative
compaction by TMC e.nd
reported to Agency.
At regu' ar in:erva'.s
througrout Pro;ecl
l'fetjme a'tec C..1l 3 fil ng
b;igns
I
I,
01..r'r-g m:r ing
County o' Los

Aq ;eles Depart-nent
c4 F ~b tic Works
G4
I
I
:I
I
Kirkmyer Deel.
To achieve suitablo factors ol safoly for cul slopes,

the following mitigation is presented. For the cut
slopes at :he northeast portion of the mining area.
overall inclinations of the slopes wlll be flatter.ad
from 1.15:\ to 1.25:1. For the cut slopes at the far
ncr:heas: porlion of the mining area, the over all
inclinatior.s ol the slopes will be !laUened from 1.15: 1
to ,.30:1.
:e!
At regular :ntervals
l~r:n ..ghc.;t Projec:
h'etime
n~c
Slte Plar review by

Agency a:id per'odie
testing 1111 me.ter"als to
vor[ly strength
parameters ol l L'I soil and
relative compaction by
and reported t:
Aciencv.
A California-re;;istered
engineering geologis:
shall periodically mor.ito
tha cut slope process.
During mining
Coun:y of Los
Ar,ge!es Department
of PubHc Works
3uitding and Salety
Al regula: intervals
thrcughout Projec!
'i!etirre
Ex.3,pg.27
-~~~~~-~~~~~~~~
DD
05.
OD O
Interim mining cuts will be constructed using 35-footwide benches over 35-loot elevationlll changes
during the remcval o! the native material-while
controlling surface runoff and erosion.
The mining activity will be regularly monitored
:hroughout th& life of the Project by a California
registered civil engin9er or engineering goologis:.
and periodic testing of the till materials w!II be
performed to verily strength paramelers of the fill soil
and relative compaction. The mine opera1or will
maintain all records ol correspondence, reports, and
designs provided by Iha registered professionai.
Ga.
II
I,
i
DDODODOD D D D
Doing mining
County of Los
Angeles Departmenl
o/ Public Woiks
During min:ng
County o: Los
Angeles Department
o/ Publ C WO(kS
l
.
G7
Prcposed mirJng and reclamatlonspec/fications and

procedures will be in accordance wl:h the Cou'lly of
Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, Title 22,
Part 9, Chapter 22.56 surface m,nfng pe:mi1s.
Project s!artu:: and

duti'lg mining
Ccunty of Los
Angeles Department
cf Public Works
A ca~fornia-registered
engineorln g geologist
shall periodically monitor
the orocess.
The following monitoring
actions shall be
performed under the
direcUon of a Californiaregistered civil engineer
or engineering geologist:
1) Periodic testing 0: f~I
materials to verify
strength parar:".e!ers er
mf soil arid relative
compaction, 2)
Veri!icatlon of
comp''ance with
Mitigation Measures G1 ,
G2, G3, G4, GS, and G7
Site Plan ar.c
Reclamation Plan review
by Agency and approval
ar.d periodic testing o! mt
mate:!als to verify
s:rength parameters o'
f.11 soil end relative
compaction by TMC and
reported to Agency.
At rag~~ar intervals
throughOu: Froje:t
lfe:ime
At reg~lar intervals
throughout ?rofect
liletime
Site ?Ian and

Recia,ia!icn ?Ian
review and a:::>roval are
a cordition of apprcva'
pric le cc ,stru::tion
Perio(fc !esting sha'I be
carried out at regu'a'
intervals tr.rot:ghcL t
D,"';........ ,
Kirkmyer Deel.
1:1 ...
t:....,~
Ex.3,pg.28
o ~o o
Water Reso::rces
WF.1. ! TMC \,ill conduct a mon;tc:ing ;irogram for water
resources ar,d sensitive ecological habita:s in lhe
immedia1e v,cinity of ,he Froject. The Habitat
Poteclion Plan will include the !oflowing
1c::ir.,ponents:
Fc:.i: exis1ing monitoring wells will be ma'ntained
e) :o monitor water levels ol :he Santa C!ara River
unde:-:low durirl9 the Ilia of the Project.
b) Surla::e flows of the Santa Clara River will t:e
monito,ed dl.lring the life of the Project al a
location(s) to be determined In conjunction w:th
Responsible Agencies prior to the start of
:ni:,ing.
c] The riparian and aquatic habitat in the
immediate vicinity of the site will be monitored
as detailed in the hablta: protection plan
;resented ir. Appendix F6 of the FEIS.
c ) The Habitat Protection Plan contair,s action
levels l~at will trigger adjus1ments to mining
operations to reduce Project waler consurr.pticn
to avoid llig.,ilicant degracation ol ths
ecolog:cally sensitive habita:s atlributab:e lo !he
Project. Operational adjustments will incluce
one or more of the lollowin;;: a; Seasonal sand
and gravei produclion adjustmer,ts throi.:gh
s:ockpi1ing materials. b) seasonai
ma;iagement or concra:e production, :J
stockplilng lines temporarily 10 eliminate water
used ;n lho com;:iaction process, d) increased
use ol dust palliatives for dusl control, e;
1empcrary reduction or cessation or purr.ping of
river underllows, and f) ces salion rrinin!;
operations, ii necessary.
D
I
P:ojecl start:ip and

du:inQ m ining
Stats Waler
Resources Contrcl
9oa;ti {SWACB)
Habitat Pro1ection Pl1n

:eview and appoval
C ondi:ion ol Apoova
and l~roughcut ;,roje::::
lifetime
Peiodic silo visits
i
I
?i
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.29
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~- ~~~~~~~~~~~
DO D
DOD
DODD D DD
Flood
;:1.
Fl
.
F3
11
I
,I
tt
Kirkmyer Deel.
Tha Project will include conslrucUon o' seven

desiltlngtdebris basins according to the
speci!icatlons of the Drainage Concept Plan to
conlrol surf ace runoff and sedimentation. Durir:g
Iha! design. the Applicant shall sul>mit detalleo plans
for the debris basins including a static and seismic
slope sl:.idy that analyzes all proposed debris basin
slopes greater :han 3: 1 gradient. Plans shall be
approved by the DPW prior to the commer.cemenl ol
gradir.o work on the pro;ecl
A 45-inch culvert will be installed under S:>ledad
Canyon Road to accommodate existing runofl
cond,bons as wet as conditions for the Project
Cons:ruelion of destltlng/debrls Basin 2E and the
add :.on of the 45-inch-diame:er culvert under
So'edad Canyon Road are Project design leatures
;hat resul! in beneliclal impacts by correcting
1nadecuate existino cond'nions.
Proper mairitenance and cleaning of erosion cor.trol
lacililies and deslltfng/debrls basins wm be
conducted as part ol the"Project operallons.
lnsp2cticr1 frequencies end maintenance procedures
are re<;:iired by the Stormwater Pollullon Prevention
Plan {SWPPP) (see Appandi,c B1 FEIS). These
procedures are detailed in lhe Storm Weier
Management Practices section of that pten. The
following provision will be added to the SWPPP:
stormwater desllling/debris basins wfll b& inspecled
alter every slorm event and every 24 hoors during
prolonged storm events. Prevention ol spills of
hazardous materials, such as pelrolaum fuels and
products, Is ad~ressed in the Spill Prevenfion
Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) (see
ApPendix 82 FEtSJ.
Before project work

or minlnt.
commer.cas in the
catchment area
above each
watercourse
County of Los
Angeles Depar1ment
ol Public Works
Profec: st~rtup
County o Los
Angeles Department
of Public Works
Conditlon o! Apprcval
prior to ccnst.ictior
Dasllllng/debris basin
c!aslgn review and
epproval
I
I
I
Design review and

approval
tJ
Prior to construct'or
Duri'lg mining
Cour.ty of Los
Angeles Department
of Pu!>lic Works
Monthly inspac!ion of
storrr.wa!er ar.d erosion
control facilities tor
compliance with
SWPPP, by TMC a'ld
reported to Agency.
Inspections of
slorr-:water
des !ting/debris basins
a'ter every storm eve 'It
and every 24 hours
during prolonged storm
e-.:en!s lor compliance
wilh SWPPP by TMC
and reported to Agency.
Mo~lh. y, throughout
Flro)ecl life:ime
'
Alter every storn eve'lt

and every 24 hours
during prolooged storm
events t~roughout
o,o;ect ~fe:ime
I
Ex.3,pg.30
1111111111 0 ~
- -
,,,.,....__,
~,on.,,
....-..=-
Water Quallly
The proposed Drainage Concepl Plan will be
W01
irrplemen1ed oy TMC. The drainage concep:
estab ishes a drainage plan and iacility require-nents
for l'"le ~roject and provides the df'#Sign parameters
for t.e tocation, sizing, and scr.eduling of the ercs:on
central 'acilities ta umdle the runoff, sed l"\er.ta:io::,
and debris flows ger.erated by tr,e Proiect. Tha plar.
addresses cra'nage during the premining road
construction and gradir.g pr.ase, during 1he mining
ooeration. and after eomole1ion of minlno.
TMC witt implement provisions of the SWPPP The
I WC'l
SWPPP {1) identifies po1ential sources or pol'~tants
th at will adversely affect stomw.. ~! ~: dis:h..irgc,~ 1r~:n
I
lhe sit& and {2j dcscrrbcs in del a:I specific bast
management pracli:es to reduce !he levels of
i
potlulants in stormwater discharges. Key el ements
of the SWPPP include a preventive maintenance
progam Jar vehicfes ano the slormwater
ccmeyance sys1ems, a system of good
!
'iousa~eeping m easures to control cor.tamination : r
ru~: H, and a system of desillingldebris basins
d es,gned lcr settling out excess suspended
sedimer.ls In !he site runo!f, thus controllir.g
:!owns1ream sedimemalion.
l
_o _o _o _o _o ._o
Poject startup and
duing mi'ling
County of Los
Ange~es Oepar1mer,l
o: Public Works
Hydraulic,Water
Cc:1ser11a1ian Di.,isior,
Desi!tlng/debris basin
design review and
approval by Agency.
Condi1ion of Apprcval
prior 1::i co.,struc:ior:,
and tr roughcul F' rojoc:
l''e1ime
Project s:artup and

dut'n11 r:,'n:ng
Coun1y o' Los

A.1gdes Department
or Public Works
SINP;:';:, ;.,,iaw and
C ondition of Ap;:riN'!l
prl or to construction
and througrout ;,roject
lifetime
!
!
I .
0 .0
comment by A1;ency.
Mont:ly inspec'. lon of
stormwate: racl!ities ror
compliance with SWPPP
by TMC B'ld ceported to
Agency.
CRWOC6 Los
Angeles Region
II
:\
Kirkmyer Deel.
_.
____...
Ex.3,pg.31
DD DD
WC3.
I
t
.
W04.
TMC will lmplemenl provisioos ol the SPCCP. Use

ol secondarily contained aboveground storage tanks
(ASTs) to hold dusl palliative, diesel !uel, waste oil,
:rash r:,ctor oil. and hydraulic fluid o.,site wll!
minimize exposure of these products lo surface
wa:er and groundwa:er. As previously slated. tne
ris~ ol uncielected leaks is moch smaue~ wi:h ASTs
than with undergrounc storage tar.ks (USTs).
Additionally, the SPCCP identifies procedures arid
co'llrols foal will be implemenl~d over Iha !ile cl the
Project to p,"&Vent ar.d minimize the release of
chemicals into the a1eas surface waters. The
SPCCP's main !ocus is s:orage o: diesel. hyd'.at:lic
oil. motor off, ahd waste oll in all ASTs having
capacilies ol greater than 55 gallons (no USTs are
pia:vied lor the lac1ity). However, areas ol the s~e
designated for sto,ago of smaller volumes of
potentially hazardous materials (e.g., solver.ls and
clear.e1s) are also covered in the SPCCP. General
compliar.ce req.iirements relating to laci:lly
opa1a:ions that are addressed in the sCCP include
spill response, leaks an: malfunctions, rainwater
accumula!ion. inspection, changes. trainir.g, and
record keepina.
The proposed onsite sanitary septic tank leach field
will be buill fOllowing County review and approval of
the location 10 ensure that there will be no possible
impact on waler quality. If an appropriate onsi!e
,ccaEon /or the leach field is not laund because ol
:he presence of Impermeable soils, fractured rock, or
other geotechnlcal limltations, iMC wlll l'lstall a
septic tank onsite that is designed for rouline
DD D
Project startup and
ci:ring mining
County of Los
Angeles Departmenl
of ?ublic Works
CRWOC9 - Los
Angeles Region
SPCCP review and

comment by Agency.
Annual Inspection o!
ASTsand spm
containment facililies lo:
compJ;ance with SPCCP
by TMC and reported 10
Agency.
Condiiior. or Approval
prior to cons:ruction
a_nd throughout Project
ntetime
I
I
I
I
I
? roject star.up
County of Los
Angeles Department
of Public Works
During mining and

loJlowing mine
closure
County of Los
Angeles Depanmenl
of Public Works
Site Visit, review and

testing for sui:able
location of septic tank
leach lielc!
?rio: toc:nstru::io:i
Sit~ ,iJit 1nrl review
Prier to removal of
sediment re:entior.
basins
ocmoout.
was.
Desitllng/debris basins will not be removed until

disturbed areas have baer1 successfully revegatated.
Kirkmyer Deel. .
following each
reclamation phase/ prior
10 rem9val of associ ated
sediment retention basin
Ex.3, pg.32
D _O _O 01 DO
I
I
No.
Mllllaatlon Mea t:ure Descrlollcn
i ~,o:se
t
N1
I
!
11
I
The Applicant will conduct blasting operations in

;;;eneral conlorma",C9 w(lh 1he fede:al OSMRE
regula:ions as s:ated rn 30 CFA, Cha;iter VII,
SecliO!'IS 816.61 though 816.68, and other
appl:ca::ile regulations. Con formance shall be
demonwated 1hrough preparation of a detailed
Blastir.(; ?la., l derlifying p;ojecl compliance with the
stated requirements (as mi nimum standards) and
throJgh m9ni:or"'1g of blast'ng aclivit'es. The
B.asting Plan shall :ie reViewed and approved by :l>e
Coun1y prior 10 concuctirg any b[asllng or s:te. The
Blasting ?Jar. shall provide for 1he following:
a. Submission and appovat by the County ol :he
spec;fi c blast design prio: to b "as1;ng, whee
. such blasting will occur within 1,000 feel o!
habitable bui!di ngs ou:s'de 1he perm:t area.
b. Conducting a public awaren..ss progra'Tl,
incl uding no1ification ol all res,den1s within mile
of any part of the permi t area of the oppor.unily
to request a preblasl survey. The no1ilicalion is
to be done al l east 30 days prior to inili ation of
blasting. A TMC information officer who can be
contacted b y telephone for information will be
designated.
~. Publication or !he anticipated bl asting schedule
a1 least 10 days p rior to the beginning of the
blasting program via a newspaper of general
circulation in the Project area and by di recl mail
to r esiden ts withi n mile, and repubijca:ion at
l eas1 every 12 months or whenever'substantive
changes to ,he schedule are to be Implem en ted.
Placement of warning signs and access controls
to blast areas.
e. Incorporation of the provision that blasting shall
be conducted lo prevent injury lo persons.
darnage lo public or privale properly outs.de t'le
permit area, adverse impacts on any
underground mine, and change in course,
channel, or availability of surface or groundwater
ou:side of 1he nermit area.
T ime Frame For

l m nl ementation
Projec: start\;p and
duing m'nlng
DODOO D DD
Monltorlno Aoencv
Coon!; or Los
Angeles Da;iert'Tler!
ol "'ut:lic 1/-:0ri(s
Cff ce of Su:1ace
M mr.g Reclamaf~ n
a"td Enforceme,t
(OSMRE)
VerlflcallorJ
Mo-l"tl orlnt:i Action
The B asFng Plan s
subject lo review and
ap;iroval by :he LAOPW,
OSMi=IE, and MSHA
Specific b,ast des gns
are sub;ect to LADPW
approval
Tlmlna or Verification
Pr,or to ::ilasr n;
cperations
M ina Safety and

Hoaltr Acm'r,__straron
(MSHA)
c.
l
I
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.33
-- .... -
----~-""' -
DDD D DOOD 0 D D
D D
'
l
\
lj
g.
I
'
11.
i.
j.
k.
I.
!I
l
I
Ir
of
I.
Conducting blasl,ng so that the maximum air

011erp1essu,e shall net exceed 133 d8 (2-Hz
minimum) measured directly between the
ne aresl occupied residence and the blast site
(rel. U.S: Bureau of Mines Report of
lnvastigations 8485 ( 1980) Structure Response
and Damage Produced by Airb!ast from Surface
Mining").
Conducting blasting so that the peak panicle
velocily ger.eraled from any blast shall not
exceed 0.5 in/sec for vibration frequencies below
40 Hz, and 2.0 in/sec !or vibratron freQuencies a
40 Hz or more, measllred directly botween the
nearesl residence and the blast site (U.S.
Bureau of Mines 1980b). Other methods of
de:ermlning acceptable panicle vibreUon such as
the use of seated-distance equations shalt be
allowed subject lo approval by the C_ounty.
Conducting periodic monitoring oUsite to ensure
compliance with airblast and vibration standards
and provide a seismograph record of each blast.
Monitoring shall be conducted at a
representative re sldential receptor and at a
represeri1ative location adjacent to 1he Santa
Clara River riparian habitat.
Controlling flyroci< at Iha blast site in accordance
with OSMAE regulations. That is, flyrock
traveling in the air or along the ground shall ~ot
be cast from the blasti~g Sile.
.
Maintain records as specilied by the County or
alt blasts lo, a minimum 3-year periQ(l.
Identification of conditions when blasiing will bo
curtailed, including atmospheric con~itions that
are conducive to transmission and ampllflcation
of noise olfsite, and/or condi1lons conducive to
Iha transpor. high levels of fugitive dust_
emissions offsite. The Blasting Piao wlll Identify
such conditions where blasting is to be curtailed
by the Applicant. The program shall also specify
the candidate control measures specirically
aimed al reducing blasting fugitive emissions.
ldenlification ol other parama/ers affecUn!l
blasting such as the regulatory requirement !ha!
blasting be conducted during daylight hours.
Blasting shall be prohlOiled on Sundays end
SP6cified holidays.
Implementing specific measures to prevent
n:trate contaminatiOl'I of surface and
croundwaler due :o use o! ANFO.
rn.
Kirkmyer Deel. -
..
---- - --
Ex.3,pg.34
II II II D D --r-D
T,, o\lllT."~
I
I
:~2.
I
I
N3.
Kirkmyer Deel.
-D
,,,l...,__._,.
Based o:i the prcposed lol configurat:ons of the

proposed Bee Canyon Mobile Home Park, trailers
,oca:ed west of the wes:ernmost boundary of the
TMC Pro/ect may be stJ:;jecl to significant noise
du1i rw;i Mining Cut 3 opera!io:is. 'I the Bee Canyon
Mot:ite Haire Park is co'lstrlJCted, !he noise impact
will be redtJCed to Jess lhan signl'icanl by
conslructing berms or ct.I slopes to shield lots from
direcl noise exposure as confirmed through acouslic
evaluation (based on !: :,al grading conlours of l'le
3ee canyon project). ll is anticipated that these
meas ures would be applicabie only if the Bea
Canyon Park wero actually cons1rucled. If a
soundwall is to be constructed, a derailed study wm
be co:1ducled by qualified personnel Jn the fields of
srrucrural engineering, e:1vlronmental noise
assessmen:, and architectural acouslics.
At the River's End Trailer Park and the Bee
Canyon Mobile Home Park, if constructed,
soundwails or berms will be constructed
adfa~er.t to a!fec:ed lots to mitigate oflsile truck
transporta:ior. noise.
Prio:to
mlementation or
Cul 3 if Bee
I
1
cou,:y of Los
Angeles Dep~rtmenl
of Public Works
Berm desig'I r11vi11w ard

approval
Canyon Mobile
Home Park is
cons:ructed.
Once , prior t :::>
rr.:,lemen:alion cf CI,l :J
r e ee Canyc1 Mob:re
~ome ?ar~ is
cc,strllC:ed
Prior to ?roj ec:

implementation
County of Los
Angeles Department
or Public Works
Berm design review and

approval
Once. prier to Project

implement alien
Ex.3,pg.35
---- ------ . _____
OD D
I Pub Rc Services
PS 1.
Fire prevention !raining for all employees will be
co.,ducl ed based on Cal-OSHA sler.dards, and fire
pev~r:lior. eqt.ipmen1 witt be availab!e onsile.
DD D 0 0 0 0 0 0
.
, hroug-houl prc)ect
Cccupationa1 Safely
and Heallh
Ii
Adm:nislralion
(OSHA)
Los Angelss Courty
Fire Department
(LACFOl
PS2.
No e xplosives will be stored oosi:e.
During mining
OSHA
LAC FD
'
PS3.
The water storage laci!i:l&s onsite wilt be accessible

to lire equipment by an ell weather road capable of
supporting 50,000 pounds. The r()l!,d width should
be a minimum of 26 lest within 25 feet of either side
at the ta:ik connection .
During min"ng
LACFD
PS4.
The water storage tanks should have a 4 inch and

2.5 Inch oullet with National Standard threads.
These cutlets should be no more than 6 feet from
fr1eroad.
During mining
LAC FD
PSS.
The minimum road width shall be 20 feet thrO\Jghcu t

lhe min\ng operation and must reach 10 within 150
leet or ell buildfr1gs and equipment
During mining
LAC FD
PS5.
Grades on gravel roads should net exceed 10

percent. If they are paved, than a 15 percent gacie
is accepta~le.
During mining
LACF::)
Turnarounds should be provided oo al'\Y road that

exceeds 300 leet or one every 0.25 mile to 0.5 mile.
The miri:mwn radius is 32 feet.
During mining
Los Angeles County

Fire Depart'Tlent
A minimum 2CO-loot fuel break will be provid&d

around any mining oporation.
During mining
, .
I
1.
PS7.
PSS.
LL
Kirkmyer Deel.
--
(LACi=D)
LACFC
The Poject site ~hell be

subject lo ,unsct;eduled
visi:s by OSHA and/c:
LACFD lnspec:crs lo
ensure co,npllance wilh
the fire prevention
regulations
A: any given tir.-e

c'uring Project
const:uc:i en and mine
opera:ic:is
The Project site shall be

subject to unscheduled
visits by OSHA &'ldlor
LACFD inspectors to
ensure compliance with
lhe lire prevention
reaulatlon s
The Project sile shall be
visits by LACFO
inspectors to ensure
comp!lance with the fire
oraventlon reaulations
The Project sile shall be
visits by LACFD
i nspeclors to ensure
compliance with lhe lire
or1Wention reaufatlons
The Project sl?& s'iall be
visits by LACFD
compliance with the fire
orevention re~ulatlons
The Project site shell be
visits by LACFD
inspectors 10 ensure
compliance \>~th the fire
prevention reaulalions
subject lo unscheduled
visits by LACFO
inspectors lo ensure
compliance v,ilh the fire
orevenlion recLifations
subjecl to unscheduled
visits by LACFD
compliance with the !ire
A: any given tirra

curing mine operations
nfQt,......
nt'nn_r~inn~
At any given lime

during m'"e opsratiors
At any given ti,ie

during rrine ope ations
At any given time

dur"ng mlne operations
At any given time

during mine operations
At any given time

du~ing mine operations
At any give:, time

dvrir.g mine opera:ions
~~
--
--
Ex.3,pg.36
II II II II II II OD D
II
Air Quality
.
AO ta.
Ccnstruc1ion Exhausl Emissions. Mitigation for bolh
Meavy eQuipmen! and vehicle travel is limited.
Howe11er, lhe following will be emproyed to reduce
tMse emissions to the maximum extent feasible:
ma;nta,n equipmon: in tune par rnaoufact..irer's
1.
spec"ilicafens;
2.
use cataly1'c converters on gasoline-powered
equipment;
3. retard dlese. engi.na t;ming by 4 degrees:
install high-pressure rue! lnjec!ors;
4.
'
use relormLi ated, ow-arrJssioo diesel fuel ;
5.
6. subslltute e'ectric and gasoline-powered
equipmenl lor_diesel-powered equipment where
l1>aslble;
7.
where applicab'e, co ~ t leave equipment idling
'
lo, prolonged periods; and
9, curtail (cease or reduce) constru::lior. during
periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations
(i.e., S:age II smog alerts).
retard fuel injeclion timing, resulting in NO,
reduction or 30 percent (>40 percent in AP-42):
1(;, use high-pressure luel injec tors resull:ng in PM10 reduclion in excess of 80 percent with a
reduction in hydrocarbons; and
j 1. use low-emission fuels resulting in unqJantilled
reductions in all emissicns.
ACio.
Construction Fugilive Oust Emissions. Although dust
impacts are not expected to be significant durbg the
cor,sl:L'Ctior. phase. Projecr"desigr. standard
I
measures will be implemented to control hJgitive dLst
emissions during c~nstructicn as requ\red by
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. These rules cornaln a
nuisance provisior. that gives an SCAOMD Inspector
wide latitude to en!orce dust 11ta1emenl, pa:1icula:ly
in t1e event of a nuisance complain!. 3ecause o! :he
ext:e me distances from sensilive recepto,s, n::
nuisance complaints are anticipated. Slill, typical
obaiernent measu,es, including daily watering of
active construction areas and all traveled dirt roads
:o m,nimize dusl lolling frorn 11ehicular disturbance,
will be used.
.\
D _[]
_JJ _0
During r ,-ll'li<ig
County or Los
Angeles/SLM
During constructicn
SCAQ1'/D
Applicant will main!air

malntenar.ce and
opera:ing logs o!
pertinent equipment ror
agency review
At annual SMAF.A
compli!!nce inspec1;on
Ae11iow ar.d approval or

Fugitive Dust Plan
Fugi:ive Oust Plan will

be reviewed annually
Investigation or
complaints
As required thrc ughout

Proje::: !iletime
l
I
[1
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.37
-~------ - --------
DODD
D D O: D
DD.OD D D OD D
The Projec1 is subiect to this Rule 403 and wHI

prepare a fugitive dust plan that will bB reviewed and
approved by Iha' SCAOMO on an annual basis. ,he
Plan will inciude Bes! Available Control Measures
(8ACM) and the regulation ptohibits both visible dust
and PM-10 concentrations In excess 50 rjm, at 1he
Project boundary. The Project will comply with the
Requirements
of Rule
.
. . 403.
AO le.
'
Operetioris Exhaust Emissions. In addition to the

mitigation measures presented tor onsite
operations, TMC has made a commitment to
reduce trallic congestion by providing the transit
improvements as stated in Section 3.1.7.1 ot the
FEIS. Because most o! the trucks will be
independenUy owned and ope;ated, the
Applicant h~s lil'Je control over these emissions.
Still, the Applicant does have some control over
these emissions while the trucks are onsite and
in the selection of the owner-operat()(s.
Applicable mil'gation then includes the following:
lI
1. ,r!.'Cking 'Nib be performed on a 24-hmir-per

day basis. This will reduce emissions by
allowir.g lrueks lo operate during nonpeak
hours, increasing truck spe&ds, and
eliminating prolonged Idling In trarfic, tr.ereby
decreasing truck emissions.
DD
Ourir.g operations
Ccunty of Los
Angetes/BLM
Applicant will maintain a

log demonstrating
compriance with this
requirement
Al annual SMARA
compliance inspeclio.,
'
2. When operating onsile, trucks will not be !ell

idling for prolonged periods.
Kirkmyer Deel. .
i
3.
Applicant-operated \rucks that are observed :o

emit excessive amounts of smoke (particulate
mailer) will either be tuned up or repaired, as
appiicable. Private owner-operators WIii be
warned 1h11!, II their :rucks emil excessive
amounts ol smoke, they will not be allowed
lulure access to 1he facUity.
4.
Where applicab!e, high-pressure fuel injector

nozzles will be used, and diesel engine timing
will be retarded by 4 degrees. (This includes
both 1rucks and heavy equipment.)
I
Ex.3,pg.38
JJ D _p
II II II II D 0
I
A02.
PM-10 cusl emi!isions are also anlicipated to create

a significant impact for both Phases 1 and 2.
SCAOMD
0\/ring :Tlining
The Project is subject lo :his Rule 403 and will

prepare a lugitive dust plan-Iha! will be reviewed and
approved by the SCAOMD on an annual basis. The
Plan will include Best Available Control Measures
(BACM) and the ragulatlon prohlblls both visible dust
and PM 1O concentra:ions in excess 50 g/m~ al lhe
Project boundary. The Project w!ll comply with the
requiremenls ol Rule 403.
i
J
i!
Review and approval of

Fugitive Dust Plar.
rugi:ive Dual Pian will

be reviewed annually
Investigation ol nuisance
complaints
As required :hrcughoul
Project ti fot"mo
Ferir.l t Cond't:on.
incorporate inlo
approved Plano!
Opera1l ons
Review and ap_;::r:)Val ol

Plan cf Operati ons and
a,nuai complta,ce
review as part. o' the
annua SMAAA
com:;iiar.ce inspectio:1.
'
I
I
I
Mitigation measures e.nd conlrol emciern;ie s for ez.ch

dust-generating operation are presented ln FEIS
Appendix E2. These measures will be Jncorporaled
into the Rule 403 Fucitlve Dust Plan.
To further reduce PM-10 emissions, TMC shall use a
semi-s:aliona1y 'fines conveyor system :o move
fines from the mobile crusher, located in !he active
mining area, directly lo :he NFSA. This lines
conveyor shall ex:end along the haul road to the
NFSA. A mobile conveyor shall be located ir. :he
N FSA a!'ld will 1ie in to this s:aHonary fines co.,vayor
!hereby allowin;i fines lo be distributed throughou!
the NFSA without the need for subsequent !rucking ol
this material.
A03.
'
0'.Jring m".ni~,g
Cou,ty of Los
Ange[es/Bl.M
The mobile crusher has !he ability to remove almost an

of the fi~es curing lhe crushing pro~edure. ,his crusher
shall be equipped wllh two separate mobUe co~veyor
systems. One of lhese mobile conveyor systems will
trans por. fines removed In the initial crushlr.g process lo
the ma!n (stalionary) fines conveyor and subsequenlly to
the NFSA. The other mobUe eon11eyor will transpor1
excavation products to the main product conveyor w~ich
takes il '.o :he mck plant 'or fur.her processing
er
t
I
Kirkmyer Deel.
Not a!I the fines ae removed at the rr.obUe crusher

an~ the rock plant also produces a modicum of fl.nes
during :he process.ing procedure. These fines will be
hauled by dump lruck
the rock plant back to lh e
stationary 1ir;es conveyor where it meets the haul route
From this point lhe 11nes wi;I then travel e.long the
stationary fines conveyor lo the NFSA. Transfer pc'nts
on lhe conveyor will be contro!led by wet suppression.
r,om
Ex.3,pg.39
OD O
A04.
For eqt.:ipment lalnng In ~eappropriate horsepower

ranges, the Project will use equipment which meets
\ EPA/CARB standards (see Section 3.1.18 o! tho
FEIS). For Pha$e l, the minimum standards whicn
would ap;,ty would be the 1996 standards for 175
7S0 hp engine~ end lhe 2000 stand aids for
equi;,ment rated ,.750 hp. Additional equipment
purchased for Phase 2 of the Project will meet the
year 20Q1 stan,:1arc1s 1or 17S.750 hp.
DD
During mining
County of Los
A.'lgeles/BLM
Appricent will maintain a

log of o:isite equipment
speclfrcatio,'ls :he:
demonstrates
compliance with this
measure.
At annual SMARA
compliance i:isp11cfon
During mining
County of Los
Angeles/BLM
Applicant will maintain a

monthly log ol equipment
operating hours and will
implement control
measures when annual
emissions approach the
required threshcld.
A: annual SMAAA
conipr.ance inspecticn
Equipment built to meet EPAICARB certified engine

standards Incorporates a number ol combustion
system improvements. Therefore mitigation
measure A01 tnvolvlng retarding diesel engine
:imlng by 4 degrees and instafflng high-pressure fuel
injectors would not be applicable to this equipment.
AOS~
Based on currently available technology, TMC

proposes to install particulata lilters that achieve 95
percent or greater reduction in diesel exhaust
particula:es on the lollowir,g equipment:
Phase l : 13 cu. yd. pit loader; two, 100-ton haul
t:ucks; and wafer truck
Phase 2: two, 13cu.yd. pit lo.aders; fo:,r, 100-ton
haul trucks; water truck; !\Vo front end loaders; and
35-lon dump truck.
I
1i
I
I
Since diesel exhaust has recently begun to receive a

high degree of attention, significant advances In
control technology fOf heavy equipment are
anticrpa:ed In the luture. As these advances tako
place. n,1c will review new technologies for their
feasibility and a:1;:iricablllty. Alternative methods for
achieving equivalent or better diesel par:lcu1ate
reductions may be implemented In place of
particulate li!ters. These alterna:Jyes may include:
I
I
Convers'on of some equipment to afternallve er

deal-fuel technology, ii this becomes feasible.
Purchasing lower emitting equipment, if it becomes
available when new purchases are being
considered.
Use of tow sulfur di eset, II fl becomes available.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.40
II II II Ill
_p _o
~~D
0 D
D .0
_O D ..0
I Atr Conformlty Stlpulat[ons (not Included In AC mltlaatlon measures)
SCAOWD Permits for o_nsite s:ationary sources
Prcor to opera1,c;
al the sile
SC.AQ'.\O
Obtain valid P ermit to

Construct or Permit to
Opeate for all stationary
equipment prior to
Annual reponir.g
required :o and per,ocfc
i nspecticr,s by
SCAOMO
The impacts associated with 1he loss of natu,al

vegetation communities and wildlife habitat ir. :he
Project area are less lhar. sigr.ilicanl with
implementation o1 the Reclamation Plan. Tha
Reclamation Plan provides for concurrent
1e11cgotation of the sile with species presently found
onsite. The Reclamation ?Jan cu:lines revegeta:io:i
specifications and establishes performance criteria
for success of reveaetation of the site.
Significant impacts on the ,1Jensitive pl11nt species
(Peirson's morning glory, slender mariposa lily,
P!ummer's mariposa lily, and cl L:b-halred mariposa
li~f ) In :he northwestern rec;ion of the Project site dc.1e
to fines placement and polentiatly from placement or
dasiltingldebris Basins 8 !Ind C will be mitigated by
:he fcHowir g aclicns. Seeds of :hes e sens lllve
species shalt be collected from Impacted populations
as l ines storag!i proceeds, and the seeds shall be
:r.:orporaled into the Aeveoetation Plan for the s ite .
These plan t speci es, especl ally Peirson's morning
glory, are found in areas that h ave experien ced
di sturba:ice such as fire Ol clearing . Therefore,
incorporating the seed or :hese species into th e
:evege:ation plan for the site will provide a means to
sal vage :h e populations, an d impacts ontr.ese
sp ecies will b e red1JCed to less-than-si gnificant
!evels.
'
Potential significant impact 011 the coastal wes:em
whiptail will be redL:ced to nonslgnilicant with the
:mpiementa:icn er t'ie Reclamation Plan. This
species ls often associated with disturbed sites, and
implementation or the Project would not resut In a
~ermanenl loss of Its habitat
Impacts from stray lighling from facilities and
equip-nenl yards will be reduced with the use cf lowintensity lighting and direction shields. This will
rec!uce t'ie L&vcl of i rn oacl to less lhan sicmificar.L
Duing mining
operations and
after mine closure
Counly of Los
Angeles Department
of P ublic Works
Onsite verification ol
completion ol
performance critei a for
su::cessful site
revegelation as set lcrth
In the reclamotfon plan
(Sec:io:i 2.2)
Durini; concurrent
mining reclamation
orocesses a "Id
comple:ion of the final
reclamation p!an
Onsite verilication o!
completion o'. successlu!
sensitive plant species
site revegetalion as set
lcnh in reclamation plan
(Section 2.2)
As req:,ired lollowin,;
compleUon or ll"inir.g
operations and final
reclamation (after 20
years)
Onsite verification of
presence of suitable
.coastal western whiptail
habitat following
reclamation
Following comple:ion cl
rr.inir,g o;>erations anc
linal rec!amation (aher
20 years)
Onsl!e visU ar.d photic

evaluation.
After lighting is installed

during ?roje ::t
constuc:ion
IIIOTA
a:
92
I:
93.
I
84.
II
Fo!Jcving mine
closure
County of Los
Argeles Depar:ment
of Public Works
Foliowing mine
closure {20 yearsj
Project
ccnstrucron
County of Los
Angeles Depanmen\
ol Public Works
County of Los
Angeles Depar.ment
of Public Works
I
I
!
I
Ex.3,pg.41
Kirkmyer Deel.
-~-----
"'""~~"'":a:
,-r:,i.--...- -
D ODD
as.
as.
:
'
.
!
I
I
1
Potentia mpacts on Ille Sanla Clara River blologfcal

resources from uncontrolled surface runoff from the
sile will be mitfgaled through implementation of
project desIgn measures including conslruclion and
maintenance of seven dasiltingldebri~ basins and
lmolementation of the Proiect SWPPP and SPCCP.
Poten11a( impacts on riparian habitat and
proposed critical habitat of the unarnored
1hreespine stlc!<leback and regionally sensitive
riparian vegetation from uncontrolled pum;ilng
o! underflows of the Santa Clara River 11,~tl be
mltiga:ed through implementation of the Ha::iitat
Protection Plan previously described In waler
resources. The monitoring plan will be a
muitHaeel&d program or water resource
monitoring and habitat monitoring of the
permanent flowing stic~leback hab!tat
downstream from 1he site, a~ well as seasonal
habitat adjacent to and downstream or the site .
The habitat protection program Is presented in
detail in FEIS Appendix FS. The monitoring
program will contain action levels based on
habitat requiremel\tS for the unarmored
threespine stickleback and riparian vegetation.
These action levals will tr;gger adjustments to
minlr.g operations to reduce project water
consumption, including the temporary cessation
o! pumping ii necessary. In response to below.
seasonal average rainfall, mining operations will
be adjustet;j during the dry season to reduce
water consumption. Operational adjustments
will include one or m0<e or the following:'
D D D D
Projec: !lletime (20

years).
Counly of Los
Angeles Department
cf Public Works
CRWQCB
Projsct Dfetime
U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS)
SWPPP anc, SPCCP

revtew and app~ova:
Monthly inspeclion o/
slormwe!er tacil!lles !or
comolfance w!th SWPFP
Approval at Habi:at
Protection Plan and
unschedul ~d reg.J!atory
site inspections
DD D D D
Cor.dition of Approval
prior to construcli~
a!'I:! throughout ~roJ ect
life!ime
Periodically, throughout
Projec: r,letime
seaso,,al sand and gravel production

acjuslmenls,
bl season!ll management or concrel9 produc:ion.
c) temporary stockpiling or fines,
c) Increased use of dust palliatives,
e) lempora:y reduclion or cessalion of pumping of
1iver underflows, and
fl cessation ol minina ooeralions, ii necessarv
The western-most ephemeral drainage looeted In the
NrSA, ii determined to be jurisdicllonal waters, will
\ be avoided in the western end of the NFSA by
f mllin!l the lateral placement of fines.
a)
97.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.42
II Ill
.0
-- . D _O -.,D,
!
1
Bloloqlca l Oplnfo~ Terms and CondlHons

8 01 .
The measures prcposed by TMC in the biological
assessment and summarized in the bio!og:cal
cpinion (FEIS Appendix =11) are incorporaled as
:crms and conditions of lhe biological c;iinicr. and
shall :ie included by the BLM as condltior.s o' !he
minina and e:larrat:on olan lor the oro::iosed action
002?.
f lhe water qva ity and quantity parame!ers reach
the action levers defined In the b,olog!caf opinion
(:able l,ti ed Cor"pe.rison of Unarmo:ed Threesp,ne
Stickleback Hab"tal Rec;i.-irements and Monitorir.i;;
?Ian Acl on le11e!s) :he BLM shall :equire TMC lo
notily the appropiate BLM olfice and lo cease
;iumping water 'rom the aLuv1um of !he Santa Clata
River until the action levels def,ned in the table are
aaain achieved
302b.
If p~mping ras been suspended unU at least the
waler qua ity and qua'ltity standards de!fned by the
action levels are once again achieved, !he BLM shall
limil the amount of waler pJmped from the aJuvum
ol the Santa Clara R"vei by TMC to a rate and
amount :-hat will not res;,tt In fluctualions cf the water
le11e1, water terr.peratcre, or oitygen level This
] limitati on shall remain in effect 1.ritll the 0:'1set or rains
durino lhe n!!xt wet season.
303.
The 6LM shall ensure thal TMC uses or.ly herbicides
approved for spraying in end near aquatic si:es.
such as Rodeo, within 100 !eel ol lhe Santa Clara
Aivar when waler flow i s prei;ant in Iha river. Other
herbic ides may be used, accord;ng lo Iha,, label
restrictions, to c ontrol giant reed on upper floodplain
Ro\llew hy .:.g-,ncy ol
Mining and Reclamation
Plan to ensure lh at
biological rniligation
measures are inchJded
As required curing
preparation or the pian
"rojec: r.eume
eu,1
Revisw by Agency of
Minhg er.d Reclamatior
Plan
required c'uing
Project h'etime
Report o( water oua'rty

an:: quart ly r.onilori:, g
data by , MC eview and
by Agency
Project !ill!-ILl'f>O,
after
imple"ne.'ltalion of
rieasure 902a.
eu-1.
Review by Agency o1
Mhng and Reclamation
Plar
Report of waler ::uality
and quan:ity monitoring
dale by TMC. Site visits
by Agency as requied
Kirkmyer Deel.
BLM
USFWS
terraces.
:)uring prepa,atio~
of he Mining and
::ieciamation Plan
Projec! 1ie1 me
SL.I.I:
Review by Agency oi
Mining and Reclltmi!liori
Plan
Site visits
requked
:;y Agency as
As requ:red !ro:n t:ie
rr.~e-nentation cl
measu,e B02a to the
onset cf rains dur' r.g
the , eir. wet season
As required during the

preparation or the plan
Si te visits as r&quired
during ? roject me:ime
Ex.3,pg.43
D OD D D D
lI
B04.
905.
1
\
I
805.
D rJ D D D D D D
The BLM !hall reqc1:re TMC to prepare an annual

re;:ort fer its review by December 1 cf each year the
mir.e is in operation er reclamatio.1 phases. Al:er
BL.M's :eview. the report shall be forwarded lo
USFWS by Janua~ 15. T:ie repor. shall document
the offec:iveness of the mcnitoring plan proposed by
,MC a"ld the terms end cor.ditions. a summary ol
:he informati:m :H'a: was collected regarding wati:r
quality arid qtJan:1ty Item the pre...ious year, a
summary ol the results obtained from the hatlitat
monitoring, and the :esults of any work to remove
exo:ic species. If appropriate, the report shall also
recommend modifica:icns to the monitoring plan and
tar.ms and cor.ditions to enhanco the protection on
unarmored lhreespine stickleback while making
them more worke.ble for TMC and the BLM.
On localing dead unarmored threespine
s1icklebacks. initial notification must be made in
writ'lng to lhe USFWS Oivlslon ol Law Enforcement
anc by telephone anc writing to the Ventura Fielc
Oftlce within three working days of its finding. The
report shall include the data, time, location d the
carcass. a photograph. cause ol death, ii known.
and any oiher pertinent informa:Jon. Care shall oe
taken in handling dead specimens to preserve
biological material In the best possible slate for later
analysis. The remains of unarmored threespine
sticklebacks shall be placed with :he Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History. Arrangements
regardin1, prcpser disposition of potential specimens
shall be made with the museum by lhe proj!!C!
, monitor ::rior :o imolemen!ation of the action.
The BLM and TMC will remcve other exotic species
from he habitat of the unarmored threaspine
s11c~eback wren possible. In particular, a1y
ndiv,duels of the African clawed from :hat ae
encountered should be destroyed.
!1
Kirkmyer Deel . .
Project lifetime
BLM
Annual Mcnit01ing
Report by TMC
USFWS
Annualiy by Dece:nber
1 (BUI.) end January
!5 (USF'NS)
Ravi ew or Armual
Monitoring R.epo,1 by
Agenc'ies
1
I
Project lifetime
Project lifetime
BL~
, Repor1 by TMC
USFWS
Review cf report by
Agencies
BLM
Rep0/1 by TMC
USfWS
Aeview of Report by
Agencies
Within 3 w01kir.,;; days

o! roeatiori o~ dead
er.armored threespine
s!ickleback
An'lually by Decembe
1 (BLM) and January
15 (USFWS)
!!
Ex.3,pg.44
D D D D D
c ul tural Resources
CAL
Unde; c urrent construction plans, the his 1oric
archaeological site (LAN1847H) will be avoided.
Howeve: :o ensure that t:ie site is r.ol dis:urbed by
constri:ctior.. ac:ivities, :he site will be lenced under
1na :::irection of an archaeological monitor. With 1h1s
measure, the site will !:>e avoided and protected.
which is a preferred mi1iaation measure.
CR2.
ti under f Jture construction pl ans the site can'lot be
avoided and pratecled, an ;uchaeological test
i:ror;ram 1hat rncludes achival research will be
rI
necessary to determine the site's importanco II the
s ta is rourc :o be imponant. a data recovery
;irograri w:1 be mplerrented to mitrgata lrnpac:s ::1
a less-then-sign,Jicant level
D DD _D
i Project Design and

C ons:ruction
j Prior to disturbance
o' :he site
California Omce of
Histoic "reservation
California Office of
His1or"c ?reservation
DD. DO_ D~ D
representative
archaeological mo:i'tc:
sr.all review site plan and
direct the manner i~
which Iha archaeological
site LAN' 84 7 st.all be
lanced and avoided
Representative
archaeologlcal monitc:
shall conduct an
archaeological test
prog'.a:n including
archival research :o
delermine sigr.ificance of
site and need for
As re:_t.ired du:ir.g
?reject :cns1r..::tic,
At such rme tha:

avoidance of h1stor;c
archaeologica' silo
LAN,l874H becomes
irfeas bte
' Vi sual Qualt lles
vo:.
Reclamation and revege!alion wi,1 occur s taning

every growirg season ater mi'ltng acti'lily has
ceased in particular areas.
Project lifetime and

Joltow;ng mine
c1o.sure
Co:mty of Los
Angeles Depart;,,ert
of Public Wor~s
I
'102.
V03.
V04.
During the finai ohase of reclamation. Ike roads ,,..;11

be resloped lo conform wirh the surrounding
tooooraphy.
Reclamation of the NFSA wilt include grouping ol
ravegetation to rrirric exis1ing :opcgraohy and
con'ouri,~G lo add d:mension l o :he filted stooes.
The Projec! will incorporate modern lighting sysler.1s
that d:rect light to specific areas and preven1 st,a y
lighting from Sjli!ling onto surrounding areas. ~o
liohano w!JI ba diected uoward.
Final phase of
reclama tion {after
20 years)
Final phas9 ot
racia'"laticr. (ailar
20 vears)
Project design and
stege 4 or
cons!ruc1ion (12
vearsl
Los Ange!es County

Department of Public
Works
Los Angeles County
Departme1t ol Pubic
Works
Los Angeles County
Jepertme1t of Pub'ic
Works
Onsite ver'fication ol
comple!ion of
performance criteria fo,
successful site
revegeta1ion as set fonh
In the reclamation p!en
/Section 2.2)
County Landscape
Engineer shall monitor
reslooino oractices
County Landscape
Engineer shalt monitor
reveoeta1ion oraclices
County Engineer shaU
review the project s'te
p!an and Inspect light ng
ro!lowino 'nstalta:ion
Kirkmyer Deel.
During concure1t
mining reclemat"on
::irocesses and upo1
com;ile:io-. of :he fna'
reclamation plan
F o!lowing rrur.e closure

during fina l pt>2se al
reclarna~on
Following nine closu a
during final phase o1
reclamation
Durir.,; ;.)reject desig:and stage 4 c:
constr Jction
Ex.3,pg.45
--------- - --- -
.....- , . . . _
----------------
DD
[9
Mltlaatron Meuure DescrlDllon
No.
I Trame
,
Tl.
II
D D D
'
Kirkmyer Deel.
The TMC Projec1 does nol generale significant

Project-specific Irr.pacts. However, mitigation
t:'IBasures are required !or the Soledad Canyon
Road/Antelope Valley Freeway NB !!nd SB
ramps i:,tersections, and !he east approach of
Soledad Canyon Road to the Bee Canyon
Mo:ille Home Park's most easterly access road
that were determined to have significant
cumulative Impacts. The roadWay
Improvements and traffic srgnal controls
r!!quired to e.chlsve an acceptablo LOS are
preser.ted in Table 3. 1. 11-15. These
improvements wllf be required with or without
the Project i: Iha other related projects are
developed as curren!ly propos_ed. !t is
recommended that the lnterseclion traffic
volumes be monitored by County Public Works
and Caltrans !o determine ii and when the
milige1ions ere required,
Pursuant to Los An!:;eles County Trar!lc Impact
A:1alrsis Guide!ines (DPW 1997}, the Projecl's prorata percent share of the improvements is 9.1
percent to widen and modify the east approach of
Soledad Canyor. Roac! to provide two through la:,es
and one exclusive right-turn lane {add one
westbound through lane). TMC's pro-rata shares of
the lrafftc signal installation cosls will be ~.5 percent
o/ :he cost for the intersection at SR-14 SB
ramp/Soledad Canyon Road, ar.d 9.1 percent of the
cost at SR-14 NB ramp/Soledad Canyon Road. This
sha~e was determined based on the average of the
a.m. and p.m. peak hour traf/lc vorumes enl~rlng the
ir,terchanne.
D D
Time Frame For

Jm11lemenla1lon
Proiecl r.ietime ii
required
DD O DD D D
Monllorfnn Anencv
Les Angeles Ccu:ily
Depar.menl of Pi.blic
Worl<s Trame
Division
California Depar.ment
of Transportation
(Caltrans}
Verification/
Monltorll'l<I Action
Trame volumes sha l be

periodically monitored
:hroughout project
lifetime to determ'ne
need for roadway
improvements
If lmprov~ments are
D D
Tlmlna of Verification
Traffic vclumes w I be
measured t~'.oughout
Project lifetim a
If arid wheri
improvements are
require: TMC shall pay
its pro reta share
required, TMC will pay its

pro-rata share of !he
Improvements as staled
in Mitigation Measure Tl
I
I
Ex.3,pg.46
II II
T2
D .D . D D .D .0 .0
__(] ~JJ --'D
LA Cou:11y Oepmmcm
Project lifetime
Access to :he site is proposed :o be relocat ed

lrorn i:s exis1ing locatior. on Soledad Canyon
Roac to a po' nt opposite of the existing ec csss
~f Public Work.I - 'in.me
Division
road ror :he C.A. Rasmussen mining
o~erat;ons. T his woulc create a co:'l'Jer.tlor,al

four-way inters ecl ic;; on Solecad Cany on R oad.
The ? :ojecl w ilt provide one shaed lefHurrJ:nrough
l ar.e and one exclt..sive risht-turn lane on th e nor.h
approach and aligned wi th the exi sting access roed
tor :he C.A. Rasmusse;i lacillty. A left-turn !are and
cne sharAd '.hrough/righ1-turn lane on bot~, the east
and w est approaches on Soledad Canyon Roac wsl
b e provided. Th e westbound m erging lane will be
:!esignec wi th adequate s!ght distance to th e
satisl action or l he C oi.;nty Depa~ment or -:-raffle and
lighting
I
I
County Engineers shill: !)

review and approve plan.Yd
access r02dW1y
irnprovemen:s an:I 2)
Monitor traffic volumes to
cetermine need for tram~
sign21 ir.stalla:ion
If improvements are
required. TY.C will pa~ it.S
pro-ma slur~ of the
improvem:nt, :u staled in
Miligacion Meuur: TI
DD 0, D
During projcc: design pl:!sc

a.id conmucticn kr
ptan.'lcd ac:cc!s roadway
!:r.provcmcnts
Tra :fie: , o[~mcs ! hall be
measured 1llroug~t 1hc
Proj:ct Hrelimc
If and when traffic 1igr.-l
:r.1c.alluion bc:o:m!S
ncccsury, TMC shall pay
its p:o-ma share
All slrioing improvements wilt also b e approved ~y

tt:o Oepart~ent. Some trees and shrubs l o the oast
and west c' lhe access road will be cleared, a s
necessary. l o allord a:; u"limpeded view or oncomin,;
t:a!:ic.
I
:,
I! 2nd when ac!Jal traftic cond'tians would warrant a

traffic signal, TMC's pro-rata shares or the traific
sig~al installation costs for the Poject access
road/Soledad Canyo'.l Read i:-itersectlon wi!I be 10G
p ercent.
The t\ppiicant will contribute i!s lair sha:e of costs to
resurface the spedr:c section(s) or pavemen'. on
Soledad Canyon rload. Paving shall be
11ccomplished pior lo thA start of Phase 2 or at a
later date as substantiated with a revised tra'1ic
incex analysis wh:ch includes trucks ge'neraled by
other projecis.
Prior to Phase 2
minhg operations
(with -i l C yearsj
~County
De~artment oi Public
Works - Trat'ic
Civision
The LA County
:>epartr.iert of Public
Works - Traffic Division
will monitc' road qual:ty
and determine when
re;,aving Is necessary
P:ior to Phase 2 min'l;

opera:io~ s (with n 10
years)
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.47
DOD D D ODD
D D D D D D
Land Use
LL,1.
I
i
..
'
No mitrgatio., measures are required because no
During projec'.
LA County
The LA Cocnty
signiricant adverse impacts were Identified.
design phase.
Depar.menl of Pu!>lic
Department of Pub!ic
Woks
Works shall review and

approve the proposed
Reclamation Plan
However, as a condition ofTMC's Project, the

Cour.ty will review and approve the proposed
Recl!lmatior. Plan to reclaim mined lands to a usebJe
condition. Under the proposed Reclamalion Ple.n, at
the conclusion of Iha Federal Contracts, Th1C will
reclaim the TMC's Projecl processing site ar.d/or all
;.,active disturbed areas. Any areas not used for
continued m:nlng will be reclaimed and revegelated
ror use as oper. space. Upon approval ol all
applicable permits and plans, the Project will be
deemed consistent with state, regional, and local
land use oolicies ar.d desionatlons.
Kirkmyer Deel. -
Curing proJecl desi gn

prase, pio to
cons!ruclicn
Ex.3,pg.48
No.
Mltloallon Measure Deserlotlon
Publ ic Health and Safetv

PHS1.
Detailed 9.-:wgency pfa1s are presented in 1'19
S?CCP and wU b ~ s:rictiy lol'owed
D ._.D _D
Time Frame For

lmolementallon
Pr oj ect ,ifetime
Monltorlno Aoencv
- .... ....
c:-~ ~
All Mb e Safely and 1--&a lh Admr stralior :MSr'A}

an::! other appliceb' e regu etlons will be stric:ly
e:ilorc ed.
Pr-S3.
Public access Will be restricted to reduce tho

po1er.lial
accidenls. Active m'ning areas w,J be
fenced. and signs will be posted restricting access IC
Project si1e.
PH$4.
?HS5.
Occupational Safely
Tne Projecl sile shall

also be subject lo
cnscheduled sile visits
by CAWOCB and OSHA
inspectors
Project site shall be
subjecl to unscheduled
vis!:s by MSHA
Inspectors lo ensure
compliance Wittl MSHA
reou!ations
MSHA inspectors shall
verify proper public
access restriction
measures are in ::lace
during unscheduie:! si:e
visits
MSHA _in spectors shall
verify proper publJc
access restriction
measures ara in place
during unscheduled sile
visits
Unscheduled site visi:s
by OSHA. MSHA, and
LACFD to ensure
compliance w:th all
applicable safety
regulations and !ire
codes
Periodic review and
approval of Fugitive Dust
Plan bv Aoencv.
?o e::t ti!etime
t.lSHA
. Project life:imo
MSHA
The facility will be gated to control pubhc access.
Protect lifetime
MSHA
CCmpliance wilh all regulations and re:iuireme"lts ol

OSHA, \ISHA, and al1applicable CoJnly 1994
U'li(c rrr Fie Codes w 'J be obse"Ved
Project lifetime
MSHA
It
Ii
re
OSHA
'
LACFD
PHS6.
TMC 1YIII not remove topsoil on high wind days
Project Ufetime
Verification/
Monltorlno Aellon
Re'liew and co~ment.
Admi,istration
(OSHA)
LJ D .0 -D .D
CRWOCB
and heal:h
_o
SCAOMD
Tlmlna of Verification
Owing deve!o~ment of
SPCCP and lhroughout
Project lifetime
-hrougt:out ?roject
lil~time
Throughout Projec:
life1ir.e
Throughou: Project
lifetime
Throu<;hout ?reject
lifetime
At regular i.1tervais
:hro~ghou: Project
lifetiM6
L-
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.49
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Record of OP.cision lur the Solmla<J Canyon Sanu i:iml G ravel Mining Project
Appendix B
Conlracls for the Sale of Units of Materi~ls
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.50
PIO<: Uu,
: ~.- .... =. :. ::. ' 'I

t-
. ... .
U['llTEO sr.\TES . .
.
OCl'ARTMC:NT or: TIIE INTl!ltlflll,
ll UIU!/\tl
or I.ANO M,VIAr.HM\:141?'-'
.'
.:.:.
,~.
\.
PAL~ srlHNGS ..!)(Jl_l'l'M C:C)/\:'il
Ol'l'lCE:
RE~OURCI". AREA
CA201'.l9
CUl'ITltACT NO:
t:111,riv.CT ron Tim Shl.E OF u~u,s OF MATEP.1..1 IS
D
D
D
Thi~ 11ercr.m,.n1 i~ 111,111c uuJc, ~uthc.rity or the '<Clo! J11ly )I, 1'i~7 (til ~1~1. tl:11) as amc11<.lJ (30 ll.s.c:. (,OI,
<iO,I) auu u,., 1c!111ldlivr1, 1l,"<..u,1dGr ~Gt for1h In~~ Cfl\, Cn.11111 ;'1(.00, 1i~1u,ccn lhc l,ln:i,,,19~1,,, nf Am1:rk.1
(hr.rr.in~f,r.r ' " llr.,l 1h (;uc1muc111"). ~ctini: 1hruu,t.. 1hc Aulhori~.cd Orticcr or 1hc Durc:t11 ~( Lund
l-'ll"llht~cauc.11l ( l1~n . . inl1('1,,.1 1r..111t ...1l ll,c.. pl'lucf,orir:ed (>{fi4:..:r), 11ml Tumc.,ui,-- Co,r,tt.1tl(')1~. (t-u:r,:annft,..r r.:1Ur,l th,-.
Purchstr').
Sci:. 1. ECfc.c1ivc ,lute,. T~c: Purchnoar will b" obli;,tcd for all tetm, nr lhe cc,ni,~,, llp f\ ~ i!?ni~C 11,~
,.-, odu<.1iv,, JA / ~.:. d (<,; ll1u ~oulr~c.t ....ill h..: "\Mirnum ol lcn ye-otr. ,,~th !\n .,/ft:c1iutt J:uf! Utt9;1\J1i1\g
tbc day 1he mininc plan. 10 be submiucd 1,y the J'urcbascr, is ilt1Droveu hy 11t1: 111,1 '1<11 i,.cd Oflice,.
Sec. 2. Contract arc:i Tht Onvern1ncn1 h,;:cl>y ic:lb 10 l'11rdU1$C:1 :11..1 J'\1t'chAitr hcrcl,7 huy:, C,0111
Go"crnmc nl, unJcr thi; 1t:rn1~ and CC)nditi,ln~ c,f thi~ tonrr;;u:1. lie ininer.tl u1.1h':rr:tl~ (lcs.c,.1:u:d in ~cc.
3 below, fo r xcvcreoc.:c, tl'!raction. au<t rr.1nov.:il. and oca1p:,linu fur 111i11i11s. pur~c~ on 1hc
lulluwini;-eu ,ribcd 141111$ )ituilltd iu I h.; Co11nly 11C t.,., Aui;.;J.:,, St111c d Cclifo,ni:i.
T uw n~hi11, -t l'l1u11i, lt11sc I~ We.,1, SD McdJ!a11,
:l.;coi, m I: u,1 Z, :!,Wl/4 !i.t:1/1, l~Wl/I :ll!l/-1, :JW 1/-'t :IC
!/~
~r.,:1 i11r, q. Sr-: I /J. Nr-. l/J. Nf 1/4 SW 1/J.. Sl/'2 SW 1/4. SE 1/4
:Jc~1ivu 12. 11w 1/-'t Hn l/.1.
~c:c1i11n 1~ NW 1/4 WF. 1/4, N t/2 t-NI 1/4
D
II
II
(-:.V.,,,;,,;"t- /.411 ll,
S< c. J.
~,u., u11)1
c: ,,,. IC$\ .
A1 11 (1,.11 t ""'I Fri"" a,( macri~I The 1u1:1l i,urch~,~ yri,c: ,111,111...: Jch:o'm111cd by n,uhiply:ng 11,~
10ml qu~milr or e:,,:h kind or mincr~I matcti41 <l~ muc.J by 1l1c rc) fCJ~frc: u11il wicc :i., lCI fouh
hc.lowt Or .u c.h.o1,,std du vu~I. IC"Vf/t'.1.;.,,.41, lic;.u:.uudc..-~
l(inal ()f Miilcrih
Uu:inu1y
l'ri~c
l''C:C'
Sa11d 31111 <i,:,d
unit
1J.nm.ro1
\l1lu c ,uu,
Kirkmyer Deel.
II
Ex.3,pg.51
Th~ cunlf\lCI nRM.ur~ will I,,: h;i~cd u11 u trnck luud~,J "'" ~,, linbl,nJ p,.,ducl (:11 ~lie).
1)"1r.,mi~,ition by 1hr. Autl1on1.cd Qlnccr of II. ,1...,.nti1y.of n,:,1c,i1l1 ~~r.n :.ltJll l>t l,y WL".ir,hr :md )h~II be
llinc:11nc nn ru1.:liJi,;1 ,ubj.:cl If! a1r11c:il only 11, 11rt1v1d1:~ Ill :;a:. t..
St.:.
.t.
tru,cut~, 1,.,.-.,~f" 1111i1lr.1 rick
or In~~ re:1p11r~isak
Ti~lc; lu 11,,,r~,i~b s11!1I 1tcrc1111dcr )11~!1 pa~ tt> l'u11:J.:,,c, n11ly i111nn r.c~('.r;incc. ~r r.t1r:1ct.ion
ul :,ud pr.:>rc:r pnyn11.a11 for iuch m~lcrfal,. Na~"'' or 1f1c mawri3IS 5oh.l hc;,cund.:~ ,<lmll 1,o
5,;vr.rcJ, c;:<tr,,r.rcJ, or tr.nmved by r1rrd1a.~r 1111111 ~,lv~ncc pu:,,mcnl fu, iuch "'~rr.rinb 11~~
been nude In ~a.nrd,um: will, the:. follnwint1.
''
T11c bill ,ri=r.c.sit

rhi.1 cuntr.,.:, will 1,c ppli..d to the !mt iMt:illmcnr p;,ymc111 o!
the 1otnl r.nntricl. 1:ach insrnll111cn1 p~ymcn1 sh,ll \ oe ten pee rr.nt the fair
mu~,, 11lu<:. u( 1l1c toc11l .:u111.-~,c ""'uv11r h.v.r.d 1111 11111,ni.,111 In effect vu 1hc due.
J.te of r.,ch installmc.111 p.iymc:111, or 1hc l,iJ .,..,c,\lnt, wJ,icl,var k c.ri!Alc:r
ur
. F;vh ~tfditional in~lallmcnl payment ,hall bcc,mc Jue .,,,J t"'Y~l,I'" withc111 1ti11r
,~llict, 'Whcncw.r' 1he v;li,e or n,~1eri2I.< v .vr.rcd or extracted 1tcrc11nrJc:r ~h..U cq,,~l
the snm nf the first and ,ubsequc1n in>tallmcnls drcady p~id by th~ Purch~ct,, nr
uu tL<. .,,u,i~nnry ,ln1e oC the prclli,,ur insJ :+lll\1r.nl paymcnr. wbicltevcr is lu.:H1cr.
Tilt: tutJI purdiuc price ih~II ~qu;J 1h~ ,um I)( 1hr. tntal q11anlilic~ severed au,l
remr.,vc,I nr rlesii:nated for $t\:cr:incc .nd rcntuul under the lcr111~ of this coniract,
multiylicJ by the royally ro<a in .cUecc ~t lhMiin,:, atlv;1ncc pa;mcnt ~ made, 1"hc
habnrr. rh1r. where less thau .i full in1tallmcnt n;111w113 10 be paiJ npnn lhe tc11:.I
i" i~.:." will be the""""' n( m3lc,bl remainins 1c, N: ~vcrcd and removed for which
:ulv.>n<"~ ('aymen( h~~ nut ;il.-e)dy bee,1 m:u1c. _The 1c~~l purchnsc price n,ua I><:
D
D
11id prior to ~i.iy (60) day,: h~fore 01"in1ion d:11~ nC lhc conlrllct,
If ~ny ..,idirion~I in:it~nnu:nl r.aym,111 i. 1101 nrn,lr. hy 1hc tinic. tCQUircd under this
~utinn, opera.1io11s under contract shall he ~11)1rcndc:d in1mc:diutely :111J no m~lciiI<
may Lc rcmo,-cd from cunlt:ict ~rc:i ,J11ring the F('-ind nf ~uch suspcn~lon.
M~h::ri:,k ~ .w.rcd, ci..ractcd. nr r~moVed during ,my ~uc.h pcrind of w~ren:iun ,;h:11!
l>G Jc~rucd !111:cn in 1rc.ip1,s., ""J be ,h~ri;cd Iv >ntl r~i,I fnr hy l'urcJ1ascr ;,( 11ipli:
1h-. 11ni1 ri\11tr.1<.I Jlricc 1hen:for. or at triple tile rcap1orai,cJ 1111il price if o
rcupl'ah.r.rl b,u been 111ndc. Rc, mnptinn or hieing will hr. amhori~cd ln wrilint. by
th<" Auth,,w.ed OC!iccr ouly aCtcr n1d1 rc11111rcd ray111c;,,1., hvr. b<:.:n mndc. /\ny
)u,11cu~ill11 11ndc.r 1hi., lc.C\iun :.11:111 nol t,~ ;1ddcd 1.u lit~ pc.rind nf the contracl.
b)
D
D
D
Risk ur lll.'I~ l'llr'thl!Jtr ,hr.JI a,sumc complcti: rid: of lus. r(,, ~11 mlr.ri:\h, litlc t,>
wbiclt hH p:isscd. JC matc.ri~I r.riw.rcrl hy this contr:icl, 1i1lc to which h:o nor ,m,~d,
i$ clatnJ~cl! or destroyed, rurd,a~, ..,1,., 11 be li:ibl.: for .ill lo"" r.uCfor'!d if r1,rch~1.:r,
h~ .:i>nu:ir.lor,;.. ,1r rnbcontr2c1ors, ur ,:n,plnycc.~ ol any o( then\, ~re directly ur
mdircccJy re.spnnsible for the rJ~magc. IC sue!, material i., J~,n~;eJ or dc,tso~,I
v,i1hc:,u1 faul1 on d,~ir part, Purch.iscr sh:oU llt. li~hlc lor 11111 susiained to the c)1cu1
tbJl if i$ auscd by his f.illurc to sever, c1<11~t1. or remove the domai;cd ni~teri~I
u,ulcr the: ci,cunut~nc<'~ and ,~rmr of thit r n 11,r~d cxccp( that 110Chlni: herein sh;ill
be c.on~crucd to relieve either party !run, li:ol,ili1y for h,cnch ~f cnntr~ct or ay
wrt111i;ful
c)
(,t
n~J:i;oftl a.:1,
Th.: rricc per :.i.orl lun or liu,,~'!d produc1 r.,, whir.h P"Ymi:111 i) 111,dc durinr. 1hc.
firxt lour ycJr$ f(IJlowin~ approv~I of 1hc: 111iui11s ,,r~,, by the Authorized 0/fic"
,h~ll bc the hid ruy,,hy of SO.SO per tl1ur1 ron, ~ml sh~ 11 11111 he ~uhjcct to
u~ppr.,iul rlurini: lll~t lour )'CJr period. 'fbc m~rktt vulvc: uf rhe m:.ilr.rinl for
which i,~y111~11c hai 1101 :,tl bc.cn .111odc ~l,oll be rc:.11pr~isc,I :ic 1hr. ,:-.vriir~linn 11f iour
yc~rs ~nJ .1t i,,1r.rvl.~ nf not le.\~ lhln every two yc~n 1hctcartcr in ~""o,dancc wi1h
I/le rc.ii,ul;nion, SCI forlh ii, -43 Cl'R $~c1ion Jljlll.1 :!(b). Af1e r 1hc fosl fonr y,.ar~
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.52
I", \.ll
51.:f~IJI CC: CCJl-$.ILTAIHS
r.- CA.
1h, tC1ynlty ,..al I~ 1hr hi~htr of c1lhcr 1t11; or1,;,.~1 .-oy~l,y t,;,1 .,{ SO.SO pr. ,1111,r 1n11
nr th,. 111~1'~<:t vahm ~-' c~t.,l,li,he,I hy 'l(l(l<>ii:il.
J)
Sec ..t
K~Cunrts nr 1;11:tli1!, " ill I,~ ,11~1.: 111 ii,, r,,,cl,a:r.r :i~ pcrminr.ri hy 11,~ 1ct11l"tio,u
ffef far1l, in 4J C::Fn /:cction JCilO.l-.1.
Bu11J~
Tiu, Pwrch~tcr 11.:,11 wi1h111 rb~ JO 1h~ ll(riorl aC1cr ,cccipl nr thi, cnnlra<l lilr: wilh
tlic A111horl1!:1l O{Ci,;, .. .,d ,h111l 111n,nuin ~I ,II limes 111c l1011d~ 11,;11ui1c,I "'"!" 1h~
..,:;ul~tione In ~, CFR :V,IU.1:i 1n bt rurni)hcd ~~ n condr(ion I,, thf. i, ~nnncc ul lh1~
con(l1CC in Ilic mu,,unt u/ 1wcnly I'"' tcnl o( 1l1c r~ir mar kl'.! vnluc vf the tulI
con1rucl :,mounr.
D
D
h)
J>Ct(orm~.d by. l'urth'>l:r, 1Lc

pr.rform~~,,~ ~.nnci rcquarc,I lly 1) CPR J611l.1-~ .ib~U l,o forfeiw! to 1hr :uno11n1 of
dam~ecs d..tr:r111ineJ by 1h~ J\111huri,.-,J (.)f(ir~. 11 1bmkr:c~ exrr~:il 1111.: u1111111nL u(
the bond, P11rd13~r.t hereby acknow1cdi;e~ lil\bilily r... ~uch c,CCC' "- ul:'""
$;lllsfaQory ycrfOfn,~nce or 1hi~ c(ln1n,1, clie bnnd~ .,h.,11 be cincelccl, or if c,1la Qr
Uniced Sures hnml, were lumishcd In ht:u u( ~ J11rcl)' bonJ, ~ud, c.:iih. nr srri1ri1it.\
$hill be CCI urn~J lu l'ulier.
c)
Whc11r.Vt.r 1111t \,.,ml Curni,hcd un,le, 1hi1 <t>n1ue1 i, lrn111J Un$~t1,Cul1ory t,y the.
Au1hori,e<l Oflir.rr, he or she m~~ rc,iutrc a .11cw 111:ncl which ii r;11id:ic10,y lo hi,~
,r ~11 terms ur tl1c cun1ract aro n,,. C.iil,(ully an,I fully
Ctf hr.r.
or
!-u. C,. l:.xpirat1on n{ comrac1 Thi) mnrr;,ct ~hnll o;~pin: ..-hen 1ht tc,t:il ~mnunt
ma1c11.1l.\ l t ld hn.1 beer.
,cvcred ~nd rcnu.1v<!d ur 10 )'t''"~ fm111 lhc ctkdi~c (\~IC o( 1/lc: p1uJuitic,n 1.criod unlco~ ~n
Cltc~io11 ol lime i:. J?.rantc<!.
Srr, 1
F-411~! np11or:unicy clau~e - This pc1111it h Jubj,cr 1n the pro,,;don, or J::rrr11tir, Otdcr Nu. ll1A<i oC
Sept 24, 1%5, ~ ~n,c:nJ<J, which st.ti r,~rrh 1J1c nundt~crimin~t!on d;1u.~c:s. I\ topy nf 1h1~ orde, rn.iy
he oh1aiocd Crum chc sl.~nlns urfit:c,.
Sr.r.. Ii
Appc~I An ap~e~( !com :i r.li:cbiuu 1,r tht l\u1l,c:,n..etl C)ffoccr nl~Y he

l'arl ~ zuid lu the:. Interior JJ,,,.,d of bn,I ,\11rc3I~ (IHL.n).
111arlr:
pur~u.inl k, 4:1 <.:Fl<
Sc,. !/ Special dQII.ICI ond tCt.crvcd i1c11,s Thi'. ,;!hi~ of !'urdl~>tC sh~II Ile $Ubjc:,1 Iv the:. ro:i;ulut,uu:, ;,, -0
r.FR.Cimu11:J6UO, (which are 111,,dc a v:.,1 uf this cunrrae1), :1nd 1h~ folluwiue. slipul::ition~ m~rkcd .
f&l.il.,it A, which arc ~nni:h~d l:erciu :inti n1:1dc .i tArl hcrwf. The JU:ichcd $li(l11lu1ions appc~: o.i 1
D
D
D
0
l"'!i" 11,,, .._,r,.r.
Tally wt:iehi ticJccts will lie required ro t,r; r11r11i>l1cd tu Ille /\u1hori1cc! Officer. W~ii;l,r.\ will
!Jc m~Jc <Jf lini.,hcd prnJ11e1 :ii ccr1iCicd sc-Jlu. ~I 1h,~ p1l site or ~nolhcr point appruvcJ hy
d,e Ar~hn,i,~d Ol11ccr. All ticktlS n,US{ sl1ow tt,~ 111J1,ri.,I ,.-cighr, 1imc of wciehing ~"'I
~ iluu4s\cr', li&nAlurc:, u11d :;h:ill :il,o inch,Je
wr.ii:hL ~re wcip.bl ~nd olculatcJ m.;1
wdslit unlr.,$ .:inuthcr method of the w.eighlng is ~l'l''o"C\I ht tlic l\uchori~cJ Office,. 1\11
weighh will Ix: tl4dtcd 111 monthly rcporling fo,m (F.xhihit .Ill. l!a<h rcptlrl forni ~ml
attMhcd ,..,jgl,r llr.kt:I.\ ~Ii.all be SCIII 10 lhc AU1hurrud Offi"r nn ht1:r h~n Ill ,fa}" ~r,cr
&'"''
tic 1epor1 moo)(h.
The I\Ulhorrzcd Omo:, may i;r,mt an cxtcn~inn or 1imt ur 10 u,,... y,..,r in ~ccur 11ir,,cc with
ti: rcgul~iiunr. in <<>mrcn,~1i..,n (,,, r>r.nods o( mmc plan rtvicw u~cc,liu 5
mondu 1,r
lc~~I ch~ll,11~c5 J;.sr tlJ: m11r1: 1h;i11 ,i~ mohlh, which inhibir fol(illrncnt of thr. r.111,iract by 1hr:
1'1~,clin1~r. Thi~ dnu nut limi, the A11i!,n,izr.tl Otf1ccr from iS$Uing ,1n u1c11)ioll1 of 1hc
c<>nlraa for 111hcr rc~~1111, ~uchori,ctl by 1hc ,~,;11!;.1i<lM
,i,
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.53
F,u,,.
Sl:RVICI:- COIG.I...TAHTS rr- CA.
PHOl-1; Nu.
HEJ'.j 2f
-~
Mnj,mr~. '1'111: Pmrha,:cr , 11;111 nr,1 he: Jc~nel lu l,r. in tl,.,r311l1 i11 (I,~ pcrCorm.antc or the
Sec. 10 Fu.ct
1~.rl!L\ Of ll,iI ,COntr:i~t iC ru,d,~~-CT k rr~.W:I\ICiJ fr(\01 ~(:V<.:riu,-;, C,( rr.1novins ~~.,J ~"fl (!l~Vo:11101\1 th~.
, t,jcct propu lt, ,:,r nthu-wi, c JlfC,Yf:nii:tl Cioni pc,for111int1 th~. ,crnu c,f lhC cnntr~ct, hy ~uuou
11
h,.yond i1s contro.l, i11d11,li11s, b11r wi1ho111 hcini: limited 1u: ac11 or CiaJ u ti, . rnhlic cncm:,,,
inicrfcrGI\CC, nil;nc~ 1\1' dccisian~ hy 111u uir.ir,;1I, C~dcr~I, ~1r., nr olhtr i:ovcrnmc11t4\ ~scnrie~. boards
nr conmusslons; ~11y l,1wr n111!/nr rcsuh1in11.~ of surh 1111111icip~I, ~1111c, Cc,lcnl, or 1111,cr 211vc111mcn1~I
bnJi~; a.nd al3.tn, ,lic rc~11hiu~ Crum nnoJ. lire, e~11l,,~ion. <.>t other cau~cs bcyu11J 11,.:. co"trol nf
1
1hc run:l1,1~cr. If 1111, ;,( Ille :i :11ed conline,r.nr.its 1,c.c11r, Pur~ha~cr ,h411 immcJi,1dy e:ivc <he
AuthorizcJ Ofli.r .,..;iucn notice uf 1hc; 1J1u~c of 1hc J .,by nf 11rotluc11u11 O( pcrforn1a.u,.:.. Th"'
J'urchascr 1r clcb~ J by lorco m.1jeurr. ~h:ill lL'-C rea~onJblc llilii:cncc \o corr eel lh<' ,,.11,P. nC d1,luy, if
cnrrect~blc,' ~11.J ,r 1hc contlirion 1ha1 i:.111,cJ lhc dcl~y ii; corrccir.,1, J'urch~scr sh.ill iuu11cdi.11cly 1;ivo
the i\blhoriicd <>ffi"r ..,,.;11cn nolice rhr.rMC :md ~hall resume upu,uion~ under this rnnrr~cl. H lhc
condirian th~ , .,u~cd ahe delay c~n11u1 l,i: ~orrccccd \\41hin ,i.x n,nnlhs desplle tca~un~l,lc di!i 5 c,.cc
by 1ht Purch~sc.r to corr! 1hc co11di1inn, 11,cn 1l11;: rurcha~cr 111.iy 1hcrc11f1or cl~cl ti'.' lr.rrninntc \hi.~
roratr~cc wilhn111 furlhcr obli~alil)l1 l,y gi...ins v,riuc,, nncicc Ir.>, th~. Aurhori1.cd Onie.:, of rhc clccliun
to 1cnui1111\c. Th/, sht,11 he in ~d<li1ion rn ralhcr than i11 limi1a1ion <i Any right on thr:.
nC llir.
l'urchascr ll> seek a rc:scls.<Jon or 11,~ "(1111,act \Imler 1},c d<Jctrinr. nl 1mpossiuility uf pc1 forn,~nc:c,
rrustradun ur purp~c or 01her l~g~I prinr.iplc.s as niighL be applic.,blc.
r~rT
D
D
D
In WilnL-1.1 wherr.nf, lhc pariics hc1c10 have c"c~uu:<i lhiJ c<>nlrael :.r: 1he ,by li,.,1 ;,l,ovc WTltl~n.
Purcr,~scr
(Tntiivi.tual ar Jir.rn name)

4760 Vull~y uoulevord
in~ anv~lcs, ca11tornia 90032
(1'Jdrell)
ql!to-.,..(Sl,i!nlllurc)
}l.. , ... h
(D.,1~)
_ __J/7('1:_c:,,
------
((latt.)
J 9?0 - - - - -
H lhis caner.t u is CA.:curcd by~ corpor.11ic11, h mu,,l :.ffi., i
nupM nlc ~03 1.
0
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.54
..,
I . .
r .
UNITED STATES
Db PA RTMENT OF THc INTERIOR . ,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ' '
. ...
..
OFFICE:
, l
...
PALM SPRINGS-SOUTH COAST

RESOURCE ARl:A
CONTRACT NO:
CA-22901
CONTRACT FOR THE SAU:. OF UNITS OF lvlATERIAL<;

T his agreement is made under authority or rhe act of J uly 31, 19,17 (61 Stat. 681) as amended (30 U~<;.C. 601
604) and the regulations thereunder set forth in 43 CFR, Group 3600, f:c:wccn the United States of America
(he reinafter c::i lled the "Government"), actins through lhe Authorized Officer of the Rnrca11 of Land
Management (hereinafter called the "Authorized Officer"), and Transmix Corporation. (hereinafter called the
"P1uchaser").
Di.
I
Witnc:sscth, That the parties hereto mutm11ly agree. as follows:

Sec. 1. Effective dates The Purchaser will be obligated far all tenns of the contract upon signiog. The
production period for this contract will be a maximum of ten ycars with an effective date of the day
after expiration of Contract Se rial No. 20139 between the Purchaser a nd 1he Authorii.ecl Officer.
Sec. 2 . Contract area Tbe Government.hereby sell~ to Purchaser and Purd 1aser hr.rr:by buys from
Government, under the terms and conditions o f this contract, the mineral materials described
3 below, fo r severance, extraction, and re moval, and occupation for mining purposes on the
following-described lands situated in the County of Los Angeles, Sta te o f California.
u1 Sec.
Town.~hip: 4 Norrh, Rangr. 14 West, SB Meridian,
Scc1ion 1: Lol 2, SWl/4 NE l /4, ~ 1/4 SEl/4, SW 1/4 SE 1/4

Scttioo 9: SE 1/4 NE 1/4, NU 1/4 SW 1/4, Sl/2 SW 1/4, SE 1/4
Section 12: NW 1/4 NE 1/4
Section 16: NW 1/4 NE 1/4, N 1/2 NW 1/4
1111
Containing 640.16 acres more or less.
Sex. 3 . Amount and price of materials The rnt al purchase price shall be determined hy mult iplying the
total quantity of each kind of mineral ma terial designated by the rc~pcc1ivc unit price a ~ set forth
below, or as changed through reappraisal hereunder.
Kind of Materials
Quan1i1y
0;
i
IIL
l
Sand and Gravel
Kirkmyer Deel.
42,160,000
short tons
Price
~r unit
Tora I
so.so
S21,080,UOO
Ex.J,pg.55
The contract measure will be based on a lrucl< lo:idctl ton
or linishcd protlucl (:11 scJlc).
Oc1crmi11ation by the Aulhori;:cd Officer of the qu:1nti1y of mnlr.rials taken shall be hy weir:ht and shall be
bim.ling on Purchaser s11hjcct to appeal only as provided in S,:c. S.
Sc:c. I. P.iyments, passage of 1i1lc, risk of loss reappraisals.

Tide 10 1na1eriJls sold hereunder shall pass lo Purchasc1 only upon sevcrnncc or extraction
of and proper payment for such malcri:ils. No (l.>rl of 1hr. m.11eriJls sold hereunder shall be
seycred, extracted, or removed by Purchaser until ndv:incc payment for such materials h:is
been made in :iccordancc with the follo~ing.
.i)
The bid deposit for this contracr will be applied 10 the first installmr.111 payment of
the lcital contf.lct. Each ins1:1ll111ent pnymen( shall be ten per ceut of the fair
m:irl<et value or 1hr. total contract1 amoun1 based un apprai~:il in effect on 1hc due
d:ue o~ each inst:illment payment, or the bid amoun1, whichever is greater.
E:ich .iddition:>1 installment payment sl:all become due and payable without prior
notice whenever the v:iluc of materials severed or clftraclcd hereunder shall equal
the sum of the first and subsequent installments alre:idy paid by the Purd1ascr, or
on the :inniversary date o( the previous im;t:illmc:nt payment, whichever is sooner.
D
D
0
The 101:1! purchase price shall c:'qual lite sum uf the total quantities severed and
removed or designated for severance and removal under the terms of this coulract,
rnultiplicd by the royalty rate in effect at the time advance payment is made. The
bali1ncc due where less than a full installment remains to be paid upon the total
price," will be the value of material remaining to be severed and removed for which
advance paymc111 ~as not already been made. The total purchase price must be
paid prior to sixty (60)" days before e~piratiou date of the contract.
If any additional installment payment is not made by the time required under this
section, operations under contract shall be suspended immediately and no materials
may be removed from contract area during the period of such suspension.
Materials severed, cxtrac:lcd, or removed during any such. period of suspension shall
be deemed taken in trespass and be charged lo and paid for by Purchaser at triple
the unit contract price therefor, or at triple the re:ippraised unit price if a
.
reappraisal has been made. Resumption of raking will be authorized in writing, by
the Authorized Officer only after such required payments have been made. Any
suspension under this section sh~II not be added to the period of the contract.
D
D
b)
Risk of loss Purcha~er shall assume complete-risk of loss for all materials, title to
which has passed. If material covered by this contract, title 10 which has ad passed,
is damaged or destroyed, Purchaser shall l,c liahfe for ;ill loss suffered iI Purchaser,
his contractors, or subcontracrors, or einployees of any of them, arc djrectly or
indirectly re.~ponsibte for the damage. If such material is damaged or. destroyed
without fault on their p.irt, Purchaser shall be liable for loss sustained 10 the extent .
that ii is caused by his failure 10 sever, extract, or remove the damaged material
under lhe circumstances and terms of this contract except that nothing herein shall
he construed to relieve either pariy Crom liability for breach of contract or any
wrongful or negligent act.
c)
The price per short ton of finished produce for which payment is made shall he
reappraised at intervals of not less than every two years thereafter in accordance
with the rei;ufotions set forth in <13 CFR Seccion 36l0.l-2(b), and will be lhe high1:r
of either the original royally hid of SO.SO per short ton or rhc market value as
established by appraisal.
D
D
D
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.56
d)
Refu 11ds or credits w,11 he n1:1dc 10 chc Purch:i~cr :ts pe rmitted by the rr.sulation~
~et forth in 43 CFR Scclion 3(110.1-1.
Sec. 5. Bond.;
:i)
Tiu.: Purcha.~cr shall within lhe 30 day period afccr receipt of 1hil contract lile with
the Authmizetl orr;cer and shall maintain at all times the bonds rCCJui1cd under the
res ul~1io11s in 4J CFR 3610.1-5 10 be rurni~hccl :is a co11d,1ion to the issu ance of th is
rontract in the :imount o( twenty per cenl of th..: foir market v;iluc of the total
c.:ontrac.:t arnounl.
b)
If all term~ or the contract :ire no! f:iit hfully and fully performed by Purc.:hascr, the
perform:mce bond required by 13 Cf R 3610.1-5 shall be forfeited to the a mount of
damages de1errnined by th..: Aulhorizcd Officer. If d:images c."\'ceed the amount o f
1hr. bond, Purchaser hereby ack11owlcdges liability for such excess. Upon
satisfaclory perfonnance of lhis cdntract, the bon<ls shall be canceled, or if cash Qr
United States bonds were furnished in lieu or a surety bond, such cash or securities
shall be returned lo Purch:tscr.
c)
D
D
D
D
Wheneve r a ny bond furnished under this contruct is found unsnlisfactory by the

Authori"z.erl Officer, he or s he mny require a new bond wliich is satisfactory lo him
or her.
Sec. 6. Expiration of contrad - This co ntract shall expire whe n the lolal amount of mate.rials sold bas been
severed and removed or 10 years from the effective clnte o f chc produr.tion period unless; an
extension of time is granted.
Sec. 7
E qual opportunity cla use - T his permit is subjecl to the p rovisions of Executive Order No. 1 246 of
Sept '2'1, 1965, as ame nded, which sets forth the noncliscrimina ti<ln d a usr.~. A copy of this order may
be obtained from the signing officer.
Sec. 8
Appeal An a ppeal fr om a decision by the Au1hori1ed Officer may be mad<". pursuant to 43 CFR
Part 4 and 10 the fo lcrior Hoa rd of Land Appeals (181.A).
Sec. 9
Special clauses and reserved i1ems - Thr. rights or Purch:iser shall be subject to the regulations in 43
CFR Group 3600, (which are m a ue a p;ir1 of : his co ntract), and the following stipulations marked
l::xhibi1 A, which arc attached hereto and made a part hereof. The attached stipulations appear as 1
page hereafter.
Tally weight lickcts will be required lo be furn ishcrl to the Aulhurized Officer. Weights will
be made of finished prnclucc at certified scales, al the pit site or anolher point approved by
che Auchoriz.ed Officer. All tickets must show 1hc materia l weighl, time of weighing and
wcii:hmas[er's signa!urc, and shall also inclttrle gross weight, tare weight and c.alculated net
weight unless anolher method of lhe weighing is approved by the Authorized Officer. Al!
weights will he attached to a mont hly reporling for m ( Fxhibic B). Each report fo rm and
a1tachcd weight tickets shall be se nt to chc Authorized Offi cer no later than 10 days af1er
che report month.
The Authorized Oniccr m:iy grant an ext ension of 1imr. u p to one ye~r in accordance with
the regulations in compensation for periods or mine plan re view C:(cceding six monlhs or
legal challenges lasting more tha n six months which inhibit fuHillment of the contract by the
Purchaser. This docs not limit the Authori-zed Officer from issuing an extension of !lte
contract fo r o !hcr reasons authorized hy the regulations.
D
D
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.57
.'ice. 10 Forc:c Majcurc T he Purchaser :shall not he <lccmcJ lo he in cldauh in the pcrforma"!cc or rhc
terms of this cormact i( Purchaser is prcvcnh:tl from ~cvcrini;, or removing sanu and gravel from the
:snbjccl property, or 0!11cnvisc prc.vcnlctJ from pc rform1n the tcrrns of rhc contract, by causes
beyond its conrrol, iudud111i;, bm willmu1 being lir11i1cd 10 .ices of God or the public cnr.n,y,
inlcrfcrcnce, rulings or decisions by municip:11, fcclr1al, s1:11c, or ocher governmental agcncii:s, bo:irds
or commissions; ;iny Jaws and/or n:gul.itions o f such 111 u11icip:1I, s(Jlc, k llcr:il, ur o ther govcrnmenl:tl
bodies; and c:atastrophc rc.<;u{ting from fl ood, fire, explosion, o r ocher causes beyond the control of
the Purchaser. Ir any of 1hc stated cont ingc nr.ics occur, Purch.isc r s hall immediately give the
Authorized Ofriccr written notice of the c:msc of the cld .iy of production or performance. The
Purchaser if d elayed hy force majcurc shall use rcasunablt: <liligencc lO correct lhc cause of dcl;1y, if
corrcc1.ible, and if <he condition lhat ca used the d elay is cor rcc1cd, Purchaser shall immediately give
the Authorizc::d Officer written notice thereof and shall resume operations under this contract. IC the
condition that c:iu.scd the delay ca nnot be corrected within six mo nths des pite reasonable diligence
by the Purchaser to correct the condition, then 1hc Purchaser may 1hcrcaft er elect to terminate this
contr:icl without further obliga<ion by giving writlc;t1 nolu:c to the Authoriicd 0(/icer of the clcttion
lo term inate. This .shall be in addition lo rather th.in in limitation or any right on ti)c part of the
Purch;:uer to sceL: a rescission o f the contra<'! under the doctrines of impossibility of perform:mce,
fru~tration of purpose or other legal principles as might l,e ap plica ble.
D
D
In W itness whereof, the: parties hereto h.ivc cxccutc:d tl1is co ntract as the cfay fir~rabove wrictcn..
Purchaser
Transmix Co r poration
(Individual or firm name)
4760 Valley Boulevard

Ios Angeles
CaJifornja 90032
(Address)
Qanu_Q ~ f-&t.c/
D
D
D
(Tiffc)
J/fUCI
(Date)
(Dare)
If this contract is executed by a corporation, it mu~t affo~ its corpo ril!C seal.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.58
P,1i;c l of 1
EXlilOIT A
Spcci:11 S1ipul.i!Lo11s C1\-2290t
I.. Tin: Purchaser 111us1 comply wilh lhc rules an<l rc!:ul.11io11s
District.
or 1he Soulh Cuasl Air Quality Manngcrncnt

'
Z. The Purcbascr mu~t comply with the rules ao<l rcgulalinns of lhc State of C.:aliforni;i, R1:gional Water Qualily
Control Doard, Los Angeles Region.
J. The Purch:iscr mus1 comply w11h 1he State of California Mining and Reclam:11ion Acl.
ii. The Purchaser must comply with both lhc Act of Junc)l, 1949 (30 U.S.C. 54) and Section 9 of the Act of
. December 29, 1916 (39 Stal. 864 ; 43 U.S.C. 299).
5. In accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 3602.1-1 and 3602.1-2, a mining and reclamation plan shall be
submillcd to the Authorized Officer. Opera1ioos will- not commence until activities proposed in the mining and
reclamation plan arc approved by the Authorized Officer. Submissiou of the minicg and reclamation plan muse
be in accordance with the rr:gulations al 43 CFR 3602.ll and 3602.1-2. The plans must indnde measures to
D
D
prevent hazards to public health and safety and measures to prevcut unnecessary and undue degradation as
defined at 43 CFR 3600.0-S(k).
. 6. Prior tu new surface disturbance for pit cxpdllsiuo, an archaeological survey must be completed for cbc area
to be disturbed at the Purcbascr's r.xpensc. It may br. expedient to survey the entire 640 acres at ooce to avoid
futu,e delays. National Register quality properties, should any exist on the sale parcel, must
eitbcr avoided
or mitigalcd through data recovery at the Purchaser's cxpen$e. Survey, evaluation, and necessary mitigation will
meet DLM approval and will be performed in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of chc Na1ioual
Historic Preservation Ace and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800).
ue
7. Prior to new sudacc disturl.iance for pit cxpausiou, a survey must he completed ac the Ptuchascr's expense on
the area below an elevation 2000 fet".t, :ipproxim:1cely 25 ar.res, to determine whl'.thcr the plant species or habitat
of Nevin's barbcny (Mahonia nevinii) is present. Any of the surveyed area found to be habitat for this species
must ei1ber (1) not be disturbed by any activi1y associated with the operation, or (2) b e mitigated b,y measures
included in the tniniag and rcclaruatiuc plan and approved by the Authorized Officer.
8. No portion of uamined material or the contrar:1 amount of contract CA-20139 will be applied to contract
CA-:!2901.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.59
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
EXHmlT B
UUREAU O F LAND MANAGEMENT

Palm Springs-South Coast Resource Arca
400 So. Farrell Dr ive, Suice B-?.05
Palm Sprin_gs, Californi;i 92262
,,.
l'ROOUCrION REPORT FOR MONTH ENDING - - - - - - - - - 19._ _ _ _ _ __
CONTRACI' NUMBER
QUANTITY REMOVED
DAT E - - - - - - - - - - - - Attach copi~s of all weig ht tickets for the repor!ing period.
The Uni ted S t.aces Criminal Code ( 18 U.S.C. 1001) makes it a c ri minal offense 10 willfully make a false stacemcn! or rcp=enmion to
a11y De partment o r Agency of the Uniccd S1otes as lo any molter withi n ics jurisd k rion. Any p<:rson or persons niakin:; a r~isc ~raccmcnc
ar rcprcscniacion shall be sul>j~ct 10 a line o f up ro SI0,000 and imprisonment for up 10 five ycars for each offem"-
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.60
flucord of Occi:;ion for lhn Solodad Canyon Sarni and [-iraw1! Mimng Projnr:I
D
'
D
D:
Appendix C
Oiological Opinion for Transit Mixed Concrete's Application to Mine Sand and Gravel
in Soledad Canyon, Los Angelos County, CA
D
D
D
D
D
D.
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.61
Un_i ted States Department of the liltetior

,.
1-lSH AND WILDLIFE. SERVICE

Vc n111ni l'i1h a,1d Wildlirc Office
2~93 P0<1ob RoJd. Suire 8
Ven1 u10, C1lifomi 9)001
.-~
I '
( ,
January 14, 1998
Memorandwn
D
D
D
D
D
To:
State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California
From:
Field
Subject:
Biological Opinion for Transit Mixed Concrete's Application to Mine Saud and
Gravel iu Soledad Canyon, Los Angeles County; California (6840 CA930.6)
(1-8~96-F-4 l)
sJ:c~.
~ ~ n t ~ d .Wildlife Office, Ventura, Califonua
This biological opinion responds to your request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and
V{iJdlife Service (Service) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Your request for consultation was dated July 30, 1996 and was received by us
on August 1, 1996. At issue arc theimpacts that the approval of a mining and reclamation plan
for the proposed operation and reclamation of a sand and gravel' mine by Transit Mixed Concrete
(TMC) in Soledad Canyon, Los Angeles County, California, may have on the unam1orcd
thrccspinc stickleback (Gasteros1eus acu/earus wi/liamsoni), a federally endangered species.
111.is biological opinion was prepared using the following infof!Tlalion: t~e biological assessment
for the subject action (Bureau of Land Management [BurcauJ 1996); infonnal consultation
among our staffs and TMC: and our fiJcs.
Biological Opinion
It is the opinion of the Service tliat the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the unarmored lhrecspim: stickleback.
.Consultation Historv
D
D
0
The Seryicc provided a draft biological opinion to the Uure<lU on March 19, 1997. After
reviewing the draft documcnr witn TMC, the Bureau provided comments to the Service by
memorandum dated September 22,1997. The Bureau's and TMC's comments have 1;,een
addressed in this final biological opinion.
K irkmyer Deel.
Ex.3, pg.62
t.:.
Stale Director (1 -8-96-F-41 )

Descrip1io11 ortl1t: Prouosc<l Action
o
!
D
D
The nurcau may approve ii mining and reclamation plilll, submil!cd by TMC for lhc m ining of up
to 56 million tuns of sand and gravel over a 20-ycar period from lands adjacent to the Santa C!:irJ
River in the lower Soledad Canyon area of Los Angc:les County. TI1e proposed mining of a
conglomerate rock formation on a ridge adjacent 10 lhe river would occur on a site that was
previously mined for about 20 years, which has resulted in _
lhc disturbance of approximately
45 acres of the hillside. The existing mining site has not been reclaimed. TMC's proposed
project calls for the mining of an addirional 11 5 acres, establi!;hing processing foci Ii lies.
backfilling excess natural fines on the site, and reclaiming the mine sire at the termination of
mining.
To obtain water fo r the mining activities, TMC has leased riparian properties and suhrnmed an
app lication lo the Stale Water Resources Control. Board, Division of Water.Rights to appropria te
water from the Sanla Clara River W1derflow. The water would be pumpetl from wells tapping the
underflow of the Santa Clara River.
D!
TI1e proposed mining aud reclamation plan may change due lo varying market demands, actual
geologic conditions encountered, and changing regulations. The mining and rc.clamacion plan is
subject to modification by the mine operator to meet these unexpected conditions, provided that
applicable regulations are met.
Previous mining operations left a large excavation on the south side of the ridge. TMC plans 10
mine on the south side of the ridge lo minimize .surface disrurbance and visual impacts. Several
excavations arc planned on the south side of the ridge starting at hig her t:levalions and slopi11g
downward <! I angle~ approaching 45 deg rees. Approximately 82 .7 million tons of materials
would be mined lo producc 56.1 million tons of aggregate produc t and up to 26.1 million tons of
backfilled fines. Any remaining fines would be sold. A fill area for excess fines would be
established on the north s ide of the ridge and in the mine cuts on its south side. The area on the
north side will be used for fines storage throughout the life of the sitc;howevcr, revcgetation of
this area will be scquentinl as filling proceeds and benches are prepared for reclamation.
lf the maximum mining production occurs, the ridee elevation would be lowered from
approximately 700 to about 500 feet above Soledad Canyon Road. Several existing ravines on
the nortl1 side of the ridge would.be filled. If mining is discontinued at the end of the contract
term, TMC will rcvegela<e disturbed ground surfaces. Funds for the reclamation of the sire have
already been guaranrecd by TMC throug h posting a bond with the Bureau, Srale, and the County
of Los Angeles (County).
II.l
TI1e mining operation would be e1H1rely outs ide of the floodplain. Permanent watercourses arc
absem from !he mining area. Seven desilting b asins would be con.stmctcd before subsequent
project work or mining commc nres ir1 the catchment arc.l above each watercourse. A Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared for the project chat describes the stormwater
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex. 3,pg.63
D
D
Stille Director ( 18-96-F-4 I)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
mum1gcmc11t praclir.:cs for all phases of opcrntion (West Coast Environmental I99Ja in Chnmbcr~
Group, Inc. 1996).
Clearing of vegetation will occur only prior to the onset of mining in any area to reduce the
potential for erosion. As mining and backfilling or storage of fines proceed~. area ~ will be
seeded with a plant mix designed to reduce erosion.
The following facilities would be located at the mine site: aggregate plant, batch plant, fuel
island, truck washout, truck scale and scale house, service and maintenance building, stockpile
areas, water tanks, dust pallative storage tank, office, and parking area. Construction of the
facilities would proceed after the site is graded and lhe access road is developed. Facilities
would be c_ompleted in accordance with the standard construction practices and zoning and
grad!ng ordinances of the County .
. The fuel island would include two 6,000- to l 0,000-gal!on above ground diesel storage tanks, a
propane storage tank, l,000-gallon wa<;te oil tank, three 250- lo 1,000-gallon fresh motor oil
tank:!, and a 1,000-gallon hydraulic fluid tank. The plans for construction and installation of
these tanks have been designed to meet the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality
Standards and County fire codes. Two 600,000-gallon water storage tanks would be built in lhc
. faciJitjes area. All tanks are addressed in the Spill , Preventi~n, Control and Counter Measure
Plan (West Coast Environmental I99Jb in Chambers Group, Inc. i 996). All oil wastes collected
onsite will be disposed of at a certified oil recycling center.
Approximately 15 employees would be onsite during Phase l ; approximately JO would be onsitc
during Phase 2. The exact number of employees would depend on the market demand for .
material at any given time.
D
D
D
Water would be used in several aspects of the operations, iucluding aggregate production, dust
suppression, compaction of fines, ready-mixed production, and truck washing, The water system
proposed for the aggregate production has been designed to conserve water. All of the water
used will be recycled onsite. No point source discharge to the river is planned. The solids that
arc collected during recycling of the water, including the flocculating agent, would be blended
with the _waste fines for compaction onsite.
The proposed mining operation~ would require approximately 442 acre-feet of water pt:r year
during Phase I and 746 acre-feel per year during Phase 2. The waler would be supplied from
three wells located adjacent to the Santa Clara River with on-demand pumping and an above
ground pipeline to the facilities site.
TMC and the Bureau have proposed the following mitig11tion measures to reduce the adverse
effects of tile propo:s.cd action on the u~armorcd thrc:cspine stickleback:
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.64
Stale Dir<'dor ( 1-8-96-F-ti I)
D
D
D
D
I
D
D
four existing moniwring wells will be mainrained lo monitor waler levels of the San1a
Clara River underflow during the life of the project;
2.
!>urfacc flows of the Santa Clara River will be monitored during che life of the projccl at
locations lo be detcnninctl in conjunction with responsible agencies prior lo the: start of
mining; and
3.
the riparian and aquatic habilat in the immediate vicinity of the sile will be mon.itorcd as
detailed in the proposed habitat protection plan.
Monitoring will begin each season when the reach of the Santa Clara River near Pl dries (Figure
3.2.4-5). TMC would not monitor flows in years with high precipitation and year round flow
throughoul the reach from Bear Creek 10 the Pole Canyon Fault because Uf!amlOred lhreespine
sticklebacks would not be affected by,pumping wider these conditions.
In years when surface flow is absent from this reach, aerial photos of this portion of the river will
be used to provide the base for mapping. Information on both natural changes to the streambed
and man-made strcambcd alterations at River's End Trailer Park will be recorded, and perennial
riparian vegetation will be mapped. 11ie aerial photo and mop will be verified by field inspection
and perennial riparian vegetation, pool fo11nation, emergent and aquatic vegetation, and the
streambed alteration at the River'sEnd Trailer Park will be described or documented by
photographs. A survey for unarmored threes pine sticklebacks will also occur along this reach.
After the initial description of the monitoring reach, monitoring stations will be established for
the remainder of the season. If River's End Trailer Park has not altered the s!reambed,
monitorinz stations will ue set up every 100 meters (m) along thf monitoring reach from the
.springs near P4 to P6. If R.ivd s End Trailer Park has altered the stream, monitoring stations will
be established every 50 m from ju~t below the trailer park alteration to P6. Measurements will
also be ta.ken at the springs upstream of the inlet to the ponding produced by the strcambed
alteration and at lhc outlc1 from River's End Trailer Park. Monitoring will also occur at the
Forest Service campground upstream of the project to serve as a control site.
During the dry season, monthly sampling al the stations will be conducted using transects across
the river to measure flow, depth. oxygen levels, and water temperature. TMC would be required
to reduce or stop pumping the Ul]dcrnow of the river when certain action levels are reached.
Water pumping will be reduced or stopped when any combination of two or more of the average
measured parameters for the monitoring reach do not simultaneously occur at the con!rol sitt:
upstream of the: project area. The paramecers and action level.,; are as follows:
I.
D
D
D
0
I.
Flow: three measures will be taken across the stream from the mid-point and half the
distance to the hanks oflhe s1ream on either side. At each point, lhree measures will be
taken and averaged. The nowmeasurement will be taken with a pigmy flow meter or
other equivalent equipment. The action level would occur when lhe flow decreases
Kirkinyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.65
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
State Director ( l -8 96-F41)
2:5 percent or more from the previous measurement and the difference in rhc change in
flow is significantly different (using standard statistical methods at the 0.05 level) from
tl1e changes al the control site.
2.
Depth: three measures as outlined for the flow measurements above. TI1e action level
would occur when the mean water depth of the stream decreases by 25 percent or more
comparcri with the previous measurement.
J.
Oxygen: five measures wlll be taken across the stream from the mid-point, half the
d istance to the banks and either at tlic edge of the emergent vegetation or the edge of the
s treambanks, whichever is found at the monitoring location. The action level would
occur when the mean oxygen level falls below 3.0 milligrams/~iter.
4.
Temperature: three measures as outlined for the flow measurements above, The action
level would occur when the mean temperature of the scream exceeds 27C.
Seven penna.nent stations have been established on the: Santa Clara River in the vicinity of the
proposed TMC facility to monitor water quality. Baseline water quality data and general stream
conditions have beca collected and evaluated on a regular basts by the Chambers Group since
July 1990.
The operational adjustments that will occur if the action level is reached include one or more of
the following:
a.
seasonal .adjustments ~f sand and gravel production through stockpiling of .qiateri_als;
b.
seasonal management of concrete production;
c.
stockilin g_e:i;cess fines temporarily to eliminate water used in the compaction process;
D
D
d.
increased use of dust pallatives for dust control~
e.
temporary reduction or cessation of puryiping of river underflows; and
f.
cessation of mining operations, if necessary.
D
D
D
TMC has also proposed 10 remove gianc reed (Anmdo donru:) from riparian areas on non-Forest
Servi ce land adjacent to and downstream of 1he mining sice. TIie U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
currently removes giant reed on its lands along the Santa Clara River near the mine.
D
D
The habitat on nan-Fores I Service land from just above the junction of Agua Dulce Creek and the
Santa Clara River to the permanent unannored three.spine stickleback habitat at Station 6 just
below River's End Trai ler Park would be evaluated annually to determine where giant reed
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.66
State Director ( 1-8-96-F-41)
occurred. Rcmov.il would be con1ingc11t on receiving pem1ission from prnpc1ty owners in the
area and would be coordi nated each year with tbc USFS.
PlanlS would be cul and the stumps sprayed imrf!ediarcly with Rodeo. The cut vegetation would
be removed from the river corridor and shredded and clisposccf of at a landfill or humed. The
removal would be conducted in late summer or early fall when the plants will be near the end of
the growing season and the herbicide will be more likely to be transported to the roots.
Ef(~cts of the Proposed Actioq on the Listed Soes;_ic~
q
Di
D
D'
I
D.
0
D
D
Species Account
The unarmored thrcespinc stickleback WdS lis!t:d as endangered in 1970 (35 Federal Register
16047). The following information is summarized from the recovery plan for the unarmored
thrccspine sticldeback (Service 19&5). Currently, the only recognized populations ofunannored
thrcespine sticklebacks are located in the Santa Clara River and its trihutaries, San Antonio and
Honda Creeks at Vandenberg Air Force Base, and possibly in San Felipe Creek, San Diego
County. Competition with non~native fish, introgn:ssiou with other subspecies of stickJc:backs,
and loss of habitat to urbani7..at1on were contributing factors that led to the decline of the
unarmored threes pine stickleback.
The area proposed as cri"tical habitat for the unarmored threespine stickleback consists of two
disjunct stream reaches of the Santa Clara River and a short reach of San Francisquito Canyon in
Los Angeles County and the lower portion of San Antonio Creek in Santa Barbara Counry (45
Federal Register 76012). Along the Santa Ciara River, proposed critical habitat occurs near Del
Valle downstream from Interstate 5. The other are<) is in Solt:dacl Canyon; il'is separated from
the Del Valle ponion by a seasonally dry section of riverbed from Lang to Interstate 5. The
proposed critical habitat in Soledad Canyon extends from'approximately 1.4 miles upstream from
Lang upstream to Atrastrc Canyon; during the dry seru;un, portions of this reach of the river arc
dry. The Soledad Canyon portion of proposed critical habitat is located adjacent to and upstream
from the mining operation proposed by TMC; consequently, the Bureau did nor request
conference on the proposed critical habit1lt.
An important component of unarmored threespinc stickleback habitat is the slowly moving water
found in pools and riffles. Whel\ in water thal is moving rapidly, they seek shelter behind
barriers or in algal mats. Unarmored threes pine sticklebacks feed on insects, small crustaceans,
and snails, and to a lesser degree, on flat worms and nema1odes. Undrmorcd threespine
sticklebacks make their nests where ample vegetat ion and a gentle flow of water arc:: present
(Sasaki et al. 1977 in Chambers Group, Inc. 1996). Young fish tend tc.i be found at the shallow
edges of streams in arc.is of dense vegetrition (Charnb<!rs Group, Inc. 1996).
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.67
Stare Director ( J. g.<)6.f-41)
An:ily!>is <lf Effect~
The propo5r:d mining operation would not occur within hauttat of the unarmored threespine
stickleback. However, the p111nping of water from theunded1ow of the Santa Clara River has the
potential to affect the stream's hydrology, particularly during those times of the year when the
flow ofwaccr is at a minimum. Therefore, the Bureau and TMC focused their analysis of the
potential effects of lhe propo~ed action on the stream flow and water withdrawals. The Service
concurs with lhi.s approach.
The following information on precipitation and river flows is surrunarizc:d from the biological
assessment (Chambers Group, Inc. 1996). The average annual precipitation within the
watersheds above: the proposed mining operation ranges from approximately 8 to 23 inches;
direct precipitation on the property averages approximately 16 inches annually. More than
90 percent of the rumual rainfall occurs between November and April, with most of the i:ainfall
occurring from January to March. The lowes t amowll of rainfall occurs in June, July, and
August.
D
D
D
D
D
D
II
II
II
II
Surface flow in the Santa Clara River in the vicinity of the proposed mining operation is derived
from the Acton watershed and from direct precipitation within Soledad Canyon. Both surface
and subsurface flows in the Santa Clara ruvcr valley are sustained by subsurface flows from the
Acton drainage area, groundwater sto rage within the valley alluviwn, and from the drainages of
local tributaries. During lhe~nter, surface flow is continuous throughout this reach of the river
and the underlying alluvium is fully saturated. During the swnmec. surface flow ceases along
portions oflhc river. The only portion of the river downstream and in the vicinity ofT\-(C's
project site which re tained year-round flows is below the pond in the reach near the River's End
Trdi!cr Park. During periods of high flow, unarmored threespine sticklebacks may mo..-e along
the entire reach of river bctwee11 Soledad Campground and the River's End Trailer Parle..
The biological assessment also notes that this reach of the Santa Clara River is highly dynamic,
with even moderate flood flows scouring and depositing alluvial.m<1,tcrials, modifying chc
distribution of riparian vegetation, and altering the surface and subsurface flow regimes. The
runoff from the srorms of early 1993 scoured the streambed to depths as great as 6 to 8 feet in
one portion of the river and to a lesser extent along the entire stream reach. The coUtSe of the
stream within the confines oflhe alluvial floor was dramatically altered in many loc~tioos by
these storrns.
The following summary of the potential ciTc:cts of the proposed mining .operation on the .,.,"Z.!c:-:"
resources of the: Santa Clara River is derived from the: biological assessment (Chambers Cr:->.!;:.
Inc. 1996). TMC estimates that 442 acre-feet of wacc:r per year wouid beused for the .::.-s.:
10 years of the mining operation. During.the second 10 years, IOCal water use is c:stimz:::d Z!:
746 acre.feet per year. In both cases, 1he amount of water that would be used would be tci-. ~~
over time to 1he maximum level prcdic1cd for that phase. TMC anticipates thai some ~::-.-d ')f
surface and subsurface flow would be maincained in the river downstream of the con:; ... :c-..:c:.1
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.68
D
D
\i
I
State Dirr:ctor ( 1-8-96-F-4 l)
D
D
poini al th:: site of the Old Lang Gauging Station because of the volume of water in storage in the
aquifer.
Approximately 757 acre-feet cif water arc stored in !he Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer in the
vicinity of the proposed mine. Approximately 12] ilcre-feet are stored in lhe portion of the
aquifer downstream of the conslriction point near 1he Old Lang Gauging Station. TMC notes
that the aqu'ifcr from which it would obtain ilS water is recharged very rapidly when the rainy
season commences and it tends to become quickly and fully recharged with only moderate levels
of rain. In ll1c rainy season, aquifer recharge is primarily dependent on infiJtration of surface
flow into the aquifer although some level of aquifer recharge is continuous as a result of
underflow from upstream areas. Monitoring data from test wells indicate lhat the underflow is at
iL~ mmcimum during the wet season, but is continuous throughout the year at some level.
Measurer! water levels in d;e penneablc alluvial aquifer al the end of lhe dry season indicate that
the aquifer is often no! fully saturated at that time. Throughout the wet season, while surface
flows coolinuc in lhr:: river, the: aquifer is constantly recharged by infiltration of surface flows and
the sustained u~dcrflow of the river. 111e surface flow of the river at the proposed mine site often
continues for an additional two to three months into the dry season. Surface flows then cease and
the ci ver d1ies upstream from the Pole Canyon Fault. Underflow continues during the dry season
although the level of flow decreases to some degree.
Dl
l.
0 !
D~
t
i .
{
t ..
Iii
i'
11 .
TMC anticipates that waler withdrawn from the aquifer during the wet season would be wholly
replaced by inflow. The downstream flow is expected to continue uncler nonnal conditions with
a reduction in surface flows of35 to 65 acre-feet per month (in the first and second phases of the
project, n::;pcctivdy). TMC abo predicts thac t11e available water in storage in the alluvial
aquifer would not he significantly reduced during the wet s~ason.
Surface water flows at the Old Lang Gauging S1a1ion between water year.; 1949-50 and 1969-70
ranged from 432 to 2 I ,23 I acre-feet per year; the second highest recorded annual surface flow is
9.232 acre-feet. All mouths had surface flow recorded (Ground Water Systems, Inc. J 99J in
Chambers Group, Inc 1996). TMC estimates that surface flow at the Old Lang Gauging Station
would be reduced by approximately 9 and 16 percent during Phase l and Pha~e 2 operations,
respectively, and acknowledges that the effects of these reductions on the maintenance of
instream habitat:; cannot be absolutely predicted.
During the dry season, pumping would draw down the aquifer. TMC also assumes that surface
fiows would continue buc diminish during June and July, and during the late summer and fall
months, surface flows upstream from the Old Lang Gauging $talion would stop. Surface flow at
the Old Lang Gauging Station would nonnally continue at the average amounts shown in the
following table.
11 '.
II
II
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex. 3, pg. 69
I
t
!
I
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Stale Director ( 18-96-F-41)
--
Avcr:i~c
Mc:lS und
Month
Downstream Surr:icc Flow

Aft,r Pumping
Flo"
~~r
August
Scp1cmbcr
Oc1obcr
y,.;,,rl
74
66
81
Ph:isc: I
Ph:i.se 2
Ph:ise I
Phase 2
-JS
-38
-38
-6S
-6.S
-65
36
28
9
I
43
16
TMC states that surface flow downstream of the Pole Canyon Fault would remain unchanged, if
its entire use during August, September, ~d October is taken from the aquifer. In Phases 1 and
2, the entire drawdown of the aquifer for these months would be 114 and.195 acre-feet each year,
resp~ctivdy. Consequently, if the aquifer upstream of the constriction point at the Old Lang
Gauging Station is fully saturated at 634 acre-feet of water, and if the inflow and outflow to the
aquife r occur at average rates in a normal .rain year, approximately ~44 and 309 acre-feet of water
would remain in storage in the alluvium at the end of the dry season. TMC notes 1hat recharge of
the aquifer would nonnally begin jn November at the beginning of the rainy season. The
fo!Jowing chart depicts the cxpecled drawdown throughout the entire dry season.
- -
Water in
Storage al End
or Wet Season
TMC Water Use

June th rough
October (11crc-fcc!J
634
190
325
'.2
TMC W:itc:r U~c:
(:icr,.rctt
Dry Se~ on
(no surface flow
upstream of Pule
Canyon FJult)
l'hasc
D
D
D
634
Innow
Constant
(a verage)
normal
normal
Resultant
Storage in
Alluvium
normal
444
nor.ma!
==
309
Outrlow
Constant
(avera~c)
Zn summary, a bedrock constriction ~f the alluvial aquifer related to the Pole Canyon Fau!t forces
underflow of the Santa Clara River to the surface in the vicinity of the Old Lang Gauging Station.
For some distance downstream of this arc.a; flows are pererutlal. Upstream of this area, surface
flows cease during the drier portions of most years. Further upstream in Soledad Canyon, the
Santa Clara River again suppo~ perennial flows.
Under the current siruation, unarmored 1hreespine sticklebacks pers ist downstream of the Old
Lang Gaug ing Station and upstream of the project area in Soledad Canyon throughout the year.
During wet periods of the year, unannored threespine sticklebacks may be found concinuously
from deep in Soledad Canyon to near Lang (sec Figure 3.2.4-5 from the Chambers Group, Inc
1996 (attached]) wherever suitable habital occurs. As the river from the Old Lang Gauging
Station upstream in<o Soledad Canyon dries, unarmored thrccspincsticklebacks can become
isolated in pools within <his n:ach which will eventually dry. The effects of the proposed wa!er
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.70
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
l
I
St;Uc Direr.tor (1-8-96-F-4 J)
10
withdrawals on rJ1e rare or timing of the drying of chese pools cannot be ar.curately quantified,
although one can reasonably assume tha1 the waler withdrawals can cause the pools lo dry
somewhar earlier in the dry season.
Consequently, TMC has focused itS monitoring and mitigation efforts to ensure that pumping of
water from the aquifer docs not reduce the quality of unarmored threespine stickleback habitat
dow11strc::am of rJ1e Old Lang Gauging Station. As noted in tl1eattached table, TMC has proposed
ac hon levels that would trigger cessation or reduction of pumping which are well within habitat
parameter.; of waccr quality and quantity for the unarmored threcspine stickleback. TMC notes
that the cessation or reduction of pumpine of water from the alluvium would not result in an
imme_diatc recharge of the alluvium. However, TMC believes that flows to the downstream
habitat of the unannored thrccspine stickleback will continue due to discharge of water from
storage in the upstream alluvium. The amount of water stored in this alluvium will be regulated
by reducing or stopping pumping as necessary to maintain flows to the habitat. Additionally, by
monitorine rai1lfall during the wet season, TMC should be able to plan its water use well in
advance of the dry months. When a below average rainfall year occurs, aggregate production
would be adjusted as much as practicable to increase yield in the wet season which would allow a
reduction in the dry season. Monitoring and use of action levels 'o f water quality and quantity
parameters that are above: critical requiremenrs of the unarmored threespine stickleback should
ensure that the lag time between the reduction or cessation of pumping and the recharge of the
al [uviwi1 downstream of the Pole Canyon Fault will not result in conditions that are deleterious
to the species.
The biological a.<;sessment does not provide information on when water withdrawals would ceas1:
or be reduced. Under natural conditions, the level of the river would continually drop at some
rate throughout the dry season. -ffTMC's pumping is repeatedly stopped and started, some
potential exists that the water level in the river downstream of the Old I,.ang Gauging Station may
rise and fall in response to changes in the amount of pwnping. These changes in water level
could cause degradation oft.he stream by causing aquatic vegetation, which is an important
component of w1armored threespine stickleback habitat, to dry out:.. Some potential may also
exist for wiarmored threespine sticklebacks and their nests to be st.randed, particularly in drier
years.
l11e removal of giant reed from the non-Forest Service properties along the river would benefit
the unarmored threcspine stickl~back because this invasive exotic species can reduce the
abundance of native vegetation and thereby degrade the overall quality of the riparian habitat
upon which the species depends. Removal of the giant reed may also reduce the use of water by
Streamside vegetation ar least temporarily.. However, the potential effects of decreased shading
and the natural replacement of the giant reed with native riparian vegetation, which would the n
rr::q uire water, may reduce the amount of wacer conserved by removal of the giant recd.
II .
!
II
The actual removal of the giani recd, which would in volve worke rs moving through riparian
habilat, cutting stems, an<l 1rea1i11g the cut stumps wirh herbicide, can he conducted wi thout
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.71
I
I!
Il
I
D
D
State Director ( 1-8-96-F-4 l)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
11
adversely affecting the unarmored thrccspinc stickleback if all aciivities are conducted outside
the stream and poots of water. If giant recd that is growing in water needs to be removed, harm
to lhc unarmored threespinc stickleback can be avoided by having a biologist familiar with the
species inspecl the area prior to removal to ensure tJ1e fish arc not present.
Rodeo, which is the herbicide that TMC plans to use to control giant reed, h::is been approved for
use in and near aquatic habitats. Therefore, its use 5hould reduce the potential that unarmored
threespine sticklebacks could be killed if herbicide is spilled and enters the stream.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are those impacts of future State and private actions that are reasonably
certain to occur in the proj ect area. Future Federal actions will be subject to the consultation
requirements established in. section 7 of the Act and, therefore, arc not considered cumulativ~ to
the proposed project.
Development in the watershed of the Santa Clara River has probably substantially altered the
natural flow regimes of the Santa Clara River, which, in turn,has likely changed the nature of
habitat for the unarmored threespinc stickleback. Water diversions and pwnping of underflow
are not contcolled by Federal regulations and have likely reduced the annual flow in the Santa
Clara River. The discharge of treated effluent into the river returns a portion of this tlow;
however, this source of water is much more regular and constant than can be expected from the
region's natural rain cycles. Unauthorized activities along the river, such as private flood control
actions and mining, have also likely contributed to alterations in the river's hydrology. Potential
non-nati vc predators of the un~orcd threespine stickleback, such as the African clawed frog
(Xenopus lavius), are known to exist in the Santa Clara River in the vicinity of the proposed
action an:a; the effects of the African clawed frog, which is a voracious predator, on the
unarmored thrcespine stickleback arc unknown at this time.
The Service is unaware of any State or private actions which,..when considered cumulatively with
the proposed action, would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of lhe unarmored
threespine stickleback.
After reviewing the status of the species, the potential adverse effects of the proposed action, and
the cumulative effects, it is the ~iological opinion of the Service that the proposed action is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the unarmored thrcespinc stick.le back. We have
reached these conclusions because:
I.
Kirkmyer Deel.
the re.:ich of the Santa Clara River which would be mos, affected by the proposed action
nonna!ly dries during years of low rainfall and this dry ing has nol prevented the
unarmored threcspinc srickleback from recolonizing this area during wencr portions of
the year; and
Ex.3,pg.72
D
D
D
Stale Dtrcctor ( 1-8-96-F"41)

2.
l2
the monitoring program propo:sctl by the Rurcau and TMC should he able to dcicct
changes in water quality and quantity in a manner that prevents lnng-cenn effects lo
unannorcd threespine sticklebacks and their habitat downstream of the Old Lang Gauging
Station.
Incident~! Take
D
D
D
D
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the rake oflistcd species without special C)(crnptions. Taking is
defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, !rapping,
capturing, collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct. Hann "is further defined to
include significant habitat modification or degradatiori that results in death or injury to listed
species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. Under the tcnns of section 7(b)(4) and 7(0)(2) of the Act, taking that is incidental to
and not intended as part oftJie agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking Wlder the
Act provided lhat such take is in compl iance with this incidental take statement. The stipulations
in this biological opinion described as rt:asonable and prudent measures and terms and conditiort<;
arc non-discretionary, and must be undertaken.by the agency or ~ade a binding condition of any
grant or permit, as appropriate.
The Service anticipates that unaimored threes pine sticklebacks in the reach of the Santa Clara
River from station Al downstream to monitoring station PJ (the Old Lang Gauging Station) (as
shown in Figure 3.2.4-5) may be taken as a result of the withdrawal of water from the alluvium
by TMC, which would be additive to some degree to the natural seasonal drying of the stream in
th.is reach.
The actual number of unarmored threespine sticklebacks that would be taken cannot be predicted
because the species ' small s ize makes detection difficult and the numbcrof individunls
inhabiting the area varies. Additionally. detennining if a particular fish was incidentaHy taken as
a result of drying of the stream attributed to TMC's activities or if it dies as a result of narural
seasonal drying would nol be possible.
Successful implementation ofll1c proposed monitoring program and cessation or red uction of .
TMC's water withdrawals should prevent mortality of unarmored thrccspine sticklebacks
downstream of monitoring station PJ' (Old Lang Gauging Station). Tnereforc, the Service does
nol anticipate .that the incidental take: of unarmored threespinc stick.Jc backs will occur below the
Old Lane Gauging Station.
Rensonnb[e and Prudent Me:isurcs
The Service believes that the followine reasonable and pnident measures are necessary and
appropriate to minimize the incidc_!lt.il take an1icipaled by this biological and conference opinion:
II
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.73
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Stale Director (1-8-96-F-4 I)

I.
The Bureau shall reduce !he take of unannorcd thrcespinc sticklebacks by including the
measures proposed by TMC in the biological asscs.smcnl and summarized previously in
this biological and conference opinion as conditions of the mining and rcdamation plan
for the proposed action.
2.
TI1c Bureau shall require that pumping of waler from the underflow of the Santa Clara
River cease if lhe habitat requirements of the unarmored lhrccspine stickleback are nol
being met.
).
The Bureau shall ensure that TMC docs noc use herbicides which are toxic 10 llnarmored
thrccspinc sticklebacks .in proxjmity lo waters of the Santa Clara River.
Terms and Conditions
To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Bureau is responsible for
compliance with the following terms and conditions, which implement the rea5onable and
prudent measures described above:.
l.
The following term and condition implements reasonable and prudent measure I:
The measures proposed by TMC in the biological assessment and summarized previously
in this biological and conference opinion are hereby incorporated as terms and conditions
of this biological opinion and shall be included by the Bureau as conditions of the mining
and reclamation plan for the proposed action.
2. .
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
13
The following tem1s and conditions implement reasonable and prudent measure 2:
and
a.
If the waler quality

quantity parameters reach the action levels defined in the
attached table (Comparison of Unannored Tiu-eespine Stickleback Habitat
Requirements and Monitoring Plan Action Levels}, the Bureau shall require TMC
to notify the appropriate Bureau office and to cease pumping water from the
alluvium of the Santa Clara River lllltil the action levels defined in the table arc
again achieved.
b.
If pumping has been suspended until at leas t the water quality and quantity
standards defined by the action levels are once again achieved, the Bureau shall
limit the amounfofwaicr pumped from the alluvium of the Santa Clara River by
TMC to a rate and amount that will no! result in fluctuations of 1he water level,
water temperature, or oxygen l~vel. This limitation shall remain in effect until the
on:;et of r.ains during the next wet season.
The following lerm and eonairion implements reasonable and prudent measure J:
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.74
Stale Din:clor (1-8-96-F-41)
I <I
The Bureau shall ensure lhat TMC uses only herbicides approved for spraying in and near
aquatic sites, such as Rodeo. within 100 foci afthc San!a Clara Rjver when waler flow is
present in the river. Other herbicides may be u~cd, accocding to their label restrictions, to
control giant recd on upper fl oodplain lcrracc1.
Reporting Requiremerus
D
D
D
D
D
D
The Uureau shall require TMC to prepare an annual report for its review by Oect!rnber I of each
year the mine is in opera1ion qr reclamation phases. After the Bureau's review, the reporl shall
be forwarded to the Service by January 15. The report shall document the effectiveness of the
monitoring plan proposed by TMC and the terms and condicions, a summary of the information
that was collected regarding water quality and quantity fyom the previous year, a summary of the
results obtained from the habitat monitoring, and 1he results of any work to remove exotic
species. If appropriate, the report shall also recommend modifications lo.the monitoring plan and
terms and conditions to enhance the protection of W1amiored threespine sticklebacks while
making them more workable for TMC and the Bureau.
Disposition of Dead Unarmored Threes pine Sticklebacks
Upon locating dead unarmored threcspine sticklebacks, initial notification must be made in
writing lo the Service's Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance, CaJ ifornia (370 Amapola
Avenue, Suite 114, Torrance, California 90501) and by telephone and writing to the Ventura
, F ield Office in Ventura, California, (2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003,
805/644-1766) within three working days of its finding. The report shall include the date, time,
location of the carcass, a photograph, cause of death, if known, and any other pertinent
information.
Care shall be taken in handling dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best
possible slate for later analysis. The remains of unarmored thrccspine sticklebacks shall be
placed with the Los Angeles Counry Museum of Natural History. Arrangements regarding
proper disposition of potential specimens shall be made with museum by the project monitor
prior to implementation of the action.
~onservation Recommendat roiu
Sections 2(c) and 7(a)(I) ofthe-Acl mandate FederJI agencies to use their authorities to
implement programs for the conservation of listed species. Conservation recommendations are
defined as discretionary agency actions which further reduce the take of listed species, implement
recovery actions, or provide information that would assist in the management of the species. 111e
Service recommends Iha< the Burc:au and TMC remove other exo1ic species from habitat of the
unarmored threespine stickleback when possible. -In particular, any individuals of 1he African
clawed frog that are encountered sh"ould be destroyed.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.75
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Stale Oireclor ( 1-8-96-F-41}
15
The Serviccrcquests notification of the implemcnlillion of any conservation recommendations lo

keep us informed of actions that either minimize or avoid adverse effects or I.hat benefit listed
specie:; or their habitats.
Conclusio11
This concludes fonnal consuhalion for Transit Mixed Concrete's applicatjon lo mine sand and
gravel in Soledad Canyon, Los Angeles County, California. Re-initiation of fonnaJ consultation
is required if: (I) incidental take of unarmorcd three.spine sticklebacks occurs; (2) new
infonnation reveals effects of the agency action that may adversely affect listcdspecies or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in th.is biological and co11fcrcncc opinion; (3)
the agency action is subsequenlly modified in a manni:r that causes an effect to a listed species or
critical habitat that was not considered in this biological and confer~nce opinion; and (4) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is des ignated that may be affected by this action (50 CFR
402.16). Any corrunents or questions should be directed to Ray Bransfield of my staff at
805/644-1766.
Attachment
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.76
D
Q
t
[~l
Literature Cited
Chamber,) Group, Inc. 1996. Final Biological A ssc!iSment for Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel
Minine project. Prepared for Transic Mixed Concrete. Irvine, California.
q
0
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. unannorcd nlfeejpiuc Stic kle back Recovery PJa.r1
(Revised). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portlil.Ild, Oregon.
i
l
I
!
!
I.
D!
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3, pg.77
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C01WPAIUSON Of UNARNIORED THREESPJNE STICKLEBACK HABITAT
RtQUlREMENTS AND MONITOlUNG PLAN ACTION LEVELS

Observed Habitat
Reau irement
Action Level
J0.5 34.6ac
27.oac
Oxygen Level Lower Limi t
2.0 m~/1.1
3.0 m!?IL
Decrease in Stream Deoth
15 32%1
25%
<0 .1 m/sec 4
Habitat Parameter
Wa ter Temperature Uooer Li mit
Stream flo w
..
.]
J'
FeltJmelh.and Baskin 1976; Baslcin 197kSasaki"ct-al. 1977

Sasalci. et-al 1977
.
.. :..
,.
.
. J
'.
Chambers. Gru~p observntions of Sa~ta Clara lliver 84 una_rn.1 0rcd threesp~ne. .
stickleba~~ populnlion as recorded in .T.a!Jles 3~2.4-2 thr.ougb :3.,2.4-8 of ~he bio_logical
.assessment.
4
Joyce 1989
..
'.* _Uoar ~orec:I th_reespin e sticklebacks nest in vege~ation at the edge o'fstlallow pi>9Is that,. .
.. liayc a-gentle St,:~am flow; however, no eJ:act correlation exists b'etween.habi(at and '
str~arri_now. Tberefo re, the action level for. stream. flow is a 25-percent.decrense in flow.
that.is. significantly different (0.05 Jcvel) comp~red.to the flow :it- the. upstream cun trcil
.
site.
All references are from Chambers Grouo, Inc. 1996.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.78
D
D
Record of Decision lor lho Soledad Canyon Sand and (,rc111ol Mjning Projccl
q
D
I
q
o
I
Dl
o
t
Appendix D
Findings and Determinations for Historic Properties
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.79
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Unitcd States Department of the Interior

13UREAU OF LAND MANAGEM ENT
Califo rnia Descrl Oistricl Office
622 1 Box Springs Boulevard
Riverside, C,\ 92507.0714
IH REPLY RF.F!aR TO:
8100(P}
CA 22901
CA20139
(CA-062.40)
JUL l 2 2~':1
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Transit Mixed Concreto Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mineral Project,
Pursuant to Section V of the Stale Protocol Agreement (1998) between the Bureau
of Land Management - C alifornia (BLM), and the California State Historic Preservation
Officer, and in acco~dance with 36 CFR Part 800, the SLM has identified historic properties
that may be located within the are a of potentia l effect of this undertaking and assessed the
effect of this undertaking on historic properties.
The BLM has found one that (1) historic period archaeological site is present within
the Are.:i of Potential Effect of this undertaking. This site has been temporarily designated
as RMDM-2 pending assignment of a pe nnanent trinornial reference number by the
California Historic Resources lnfonnat(on Syste m.
The BLM has determined that site RMDM-2 is not eligible for inclusion on lhe
N.:itional Register of Historic Places.
The BLM hos determined that lhere will be No Historic Properties Affected by this
undertaking.
D
D
D
In accordance wilh.lhe Protocol, SLM has satisfied its responsibilities to take into
account the effects of this undertaking on historic properties that may be included or eligible
for inclusion on the Nation.ii Register of Historic Places.
Dist~
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.3,pg.80
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
COPY
RECEIVED
Leslie S. While
Exer.111lve V'.te Proi ineot & G1neral Counsel
MAR 2 l 2006
March 17, 2006
JE7Pl!ll.1,U11Cm, 11Urtl11 & MAAUAAO
Mr. Mike Pool

State Director
2800 Cottage Way
Re:
Soledad Canyo11- Mlneral Material Contracts
Dear Mr. PooJ:

CEMEX, lnc. ("CEMEX") is the proponent of the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel
Mining Project ("Project") and party to two mineral materials contracts with the Bureau of Land
Management ("BLM"), CA Nos. 20139 and 22901 ("Federal Contracts"). CEMEX seeks written
clarification on certain matters relating to implementation of these Federal Contracts as detailed
below.
I.
Background
As you aware, there have been a nwnbcr of recent developments relating to the Project.
The Consent Decree entered into between the United States, CEMEX, and the County of Los
Angeles ("County") was upheld by the U.S. Ninth Circ::uit Court of Appeals in Februazy 2006
(though the City hes made some statements hinting that it may petition for en bane review).
Also, two lawsuits brought by the City of Santa Clarita ("City'') against the BLM and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service were rejected by the U.S. District Court, Central District of California in
orders issued in December 2005 and January 2006. These matters have been appealed by the
City to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, there still remain several legal and procedural processes affecting full
implementation of the Project, in addition to the petitions and appeals discussed above. The City
has a lawsuit brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act {"CEQA) that has
been stayed before the U.S. District Court pending resolution of the Consent Decree appeal.
This CEQA lawsuit will thus Jikety be re-activated in the near future. The City also is seeking to
annex various lands-including the Project site-via a fonnal application to the Les Angeles
County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO''). As part of iCs process seeking to
annex these lands, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California
Envirorunenlal Quality Act ("CEQA") to assess potential environmental impacts associated with
the proposed annexation. CEMEX has filed a Jawsuit challenging the City's decision to prepare
United Stales OpuaUons
840 Gm ne~Sul:e 1~00. Houston. lw s. 77024. US!\. Phone: (7131722-5010. rJ.C (713) 722511D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.4, pg.1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Mr. Mike Puol

March 17, 2006
pagc2
a Mitigated Negative Declaration instead of a full Environmental bnpact Report ("EIR."). Also,
CEMEX has several Federal and State permitting/review processes that it still must undergo
(discussed below).
Given the recent events r.elating to the Project, as well as the ongoing legal and
procedural processes, CEMEX wishes to pursue its responsibilities to the BLM as diligently as
possible, but wishes to avoid any prejudicial effects of such efforts. Specifically, CEMEX wants
to begin certain pre-mining activities for the Project, but to avoid triggering the start of royalty
payments or the ten-year tenna of the Federal Contracts. The first ,of the two Federal Contracts
provides in relevant part that the "production period for this contract will be a maximum often
years with a1i effective date begiMing the day the mining plan, to be submitted by the Purchaser,
is approved by the Authorized Officer." (Contract No. CA-20139, Sec. 1.)
CEMEX believes that this "effective date provision relates to production (i.e., mining)
and not pre-mining activities, and thus requests confinnation from the BLM that certain premining activities contemplated by CEMEX and detailed below will not trigger the effective date
of the Federal Contracts.
II.
Scope of CEMEX's Proposed, Pre-Contract Ac:Uvadon Activities
CEMEX seeks confirmation from the BLM that it may conduct the following range of
activities without triggering the "effective date 11 of the Federal Contracts (as detailed in Contract
No. 20139, section 1).
A.
D
D
D
Pursuit of Agency Permits
The first component of the ancillary activities that CEMEX would seek to begin is
obtaining necessary pennits from the various Federal and State agencies as required by the ROD,
including the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources
Control Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the California Department offish and Game. (ROD, p. 8.) Pennits from some
or all of the above-listed agencies may be necessary to conduct mining operations. With respect
to any of those pennits that wilt be required, pursuit of these pennits should not be construed as
triggering the "effective date" of the Federal Contracts.
B,
Site Preparatory Work
In addition to seeking ancillary pennits, CEMEX seeks to begin actual preparation of the
site, including necessary safety and other measures, in order to get it ready for mining operations.
These site preparatory measures again in no way relate to actual mining activities. nor do they
relate to the payment of royalties or related issues. Accordingly, they ue properly considered as
ancillary activities that do not trigger the "effective date" of the Federal Contracts.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.4,pg.2
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Mr. Mike Pool

March 17, 2006
page 3
Among the activities contemplated by CEMEX wider this category include such
activities as surveying, staking the property for plant lay-out, preliminary site marking, seed
collection for reclamation purposes, and other preliminary work.
C.
Pre-production Activities
CEMEX also s~ks lo begin certain pre-production activities required by the Cowity in
its approval of the Project, as set forth in the County's Project Conditions and/or mitigation
measures identified for the Project in the County's Environmental Impact Report ("ElR").
Though these conditions and measures may trigger certain Cowity requirements for the Project,
they still would not trigger the "effective dale" of the Federal Contracts. because they do not
relate to actual mining or production activities, and thus should not trigger royalty payments or
tho ten-year term of the first Federal Contract.
The activities contemplated by CEMEX under this category include, but arc not limited
to, the following:
D
D
D
D
Posting ofpropertybowidary signs (County Project Condition 9o);
Fencing of the property;
Pre-mining grading activities;
Placement and construction of mining and processing facilities and equipment on the
property;
Construction of soWld waJJs (County Project Condition 9n);
On-site biological assessments for areas to be disturbed for sensitive plant species,
breeding birds, and wildlife (County Mitigation Measures B2, B8, and B9);
Dedication of SO-foot right-of-way and slope easements (County Project Condition

11);
III.
Road improvements to Soledad Canyon Road, including turn lanes. merge lane, and
striping (Cowity Project Condition l 1); and
Submittal of a final sediment control facilities and drainage improvements plan lo the
County's Department of Public Works (County Mitigation Measure F2; County
Project Condition 11 ).
Bases for Not Activating the Federal Contracts
The Federal Contracts provide CEMEX the right to "[c]xtracl, remove, process, and
stockpile the material[s] under the contract" and to 11(u]se and occupy the described lands to the
extent necessary for fulfillment of the contract .. " 43 C.F.R. 3601.21. The Federal Contracts
therefore contemplate two separate types of Project activities: (l) actual extraction, removal,
processing and stockpiling, which loosely can be described as "mining activities; nnd (2)
-
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.4,pg.3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
Mr. Mike Pool

March 17, 2006
pagc4
activities ancillary to the "mining activities,11 such as site preparation and other work, which can
be loosely described as "ancillary activities."
It is CEMEX's understanding that lhe Federal Contracts currently allow for ancillary
activities to be conducted by CEMEX without triggering any "effective date" in the Federal
Contracts relating to the payment of royalties or triggering the ten-year terms. (See Federal
Contracts, section l.) The "effective date" of the first oflhc Federal Contracts triggers the
royalty payment process, as well as the prescribed ten-year term of that contract. as well as the
subsequent ten-year period for the second contract. (Contract No. 20139, section I.) Thus, the
Federal Contracts are directly tied to the payment of royalties, which in turn relates to CEMEX's
actual mining and production of mineral materials. However, pre-mining activities in no way
extract or sever any of the minerals, and thus tying such activities to a royalty payment processnot to mention the ten-year contract terms-does not make sense.
This conclusion is further supported by provisions in the Federal Contracts, as well as a
"condition of approval" in the BLM's August 2000 Record of Decision C'ROD 11) requiring that
CEMEX must "consult with and obtain approvals" from various regulatory agencies. (CA Nos.
20139 and 22901, Exh. A, 11 1, 2~ROD, pp. 3, 8.) Thus, the ROD requires CEMEX to consult
with these agencies and obtain necessary approvals as e "condition subsequent11 to the
authorizations in the ROD relating to actual Project mining.
IV.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, in the interests of diligently pur~uing implementation of the

Federal Contracts, but taking into consideration the delays and other effects on implementation
of mining activities due to ongoing litigation, we request written confinnation from the BLM
that the range ofanciJlary activities discussed above would not trigger the effective date of the
Federal Contracts.
Sincerely,
D
D
~1~
4UH~vJ
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.4,pg.4
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
OV17/20 0 6 12:50 FAX 0160784.380
~ASO ~~ERCY & MINERALS
U nitcd States Department of the Interior
D
D
D

California. St.a.le Office
2800 Colt.age Way, Suite W18S4
Sai:ramcnlo, CA 95825
,.._,c:,,blm,OY
In Reply Refer To:
APR 1
7 2006
3600 (920)P
Ms. Leslie S. White

Executive Vice President and Geneml Counsel
U.S. Operations
CEMEX, Inc.
840 Gessner, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77024
D
D
Dear Ms. White:

Thank you for your March 17, 2006, letter concerning your request for clarification of
implementation of the federal mineral material contracts for your Soledad Ca11yon Sand
and Gravel Project.
As indicated in your letter, CEMEX would like to begin a number of specific pre-mining
activities for the project, but wants to avoid triggering the start of royalty payments
and/or the ten year terms of the two consecutive federal contracts.
11iree areas of pre-contract activities were: identified in your letter. These included l)
PuJ."Suit of agency pcnnits as required by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
Record of Decision (ROD) in 2000; 2) Site preparatory work; and 3) Pre-production
activities.
0
D
D
D
D
Section 1 of the first federal contract (CA-20139) states the following: "The prod~ction
period of this contract will be a maximum of ten years with an effective date beginning
the day the mining plan, to be submitted by the Purchaser, is: approvc:d by the Authorized
Officer." 1be BLM approval oftbe mine plan in the August, 2000 ROD was conditioned
11pon the requirement to obtain additional agency approvals and reviews. Also, it appears
reasonable that the site preparatory work and :pre-production activities described in your
letter would not trigger .royalty payments or the beginning of the contract term.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.5,pg.1
04/17/2000 12:60 PAX 0100784380

i
CASO ENERGY & MINERALS
~002
Therefore, I concur with your request that the; three categories of activities listed above:,
as described in your letter, would not trigger the effective date of the: federal contracts,
nor trigger the payment of royalties.
At your earliest convenience, I would appreciate: receiving from you a critical path
schedule and estimated timcline for the three pre-production activities identified in your
lettc:.r.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Steve Kupferman ofmy staff at (916) 978-4383 if
I can be of funhcr assistance.
~~--Mike Pool
Stat~ Dircc:tor
D
D
D
D
cc:
Congressman Buck McKeon

23S1 RHOB
Washingtons DC 2001S-OS25
Kerry Shapiro- Jcffc:r, Mangels. Butler & Mammo LLP
Fifth Floor
Two Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-3824
W0-300
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.5,pg.2
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
PRINCIPLES FOR COOPERATION

BETWEEN
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AND
CEMEX Inc.
The following Principles for Cooperation (Agreement) betwc:en the City of Santa Clarita
(City) and CEMEX Inc. (CEMEX) (collectively "Parties"), relating to the proposed
Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project (Project), are entered into this 8th day
of January, 2007.
l. CEMEX agrees not to make any applications, notices or any other submittals to
secure or advance any federal, state, regional or local permits, notices, or seek
review for any approvals for the Project during the period beginning January 1,
2007, and continuing through December 31, 2007 (Term). The Parties agree to
work to ensure that all pending processes and permit applications related to the
Project are not advanced from their current status, but also that these pending
processes and applications do not lapse or are otherwise prejudiced during the
Term of this Agreement; with the clear intent to leave both Parties in the same
position procedurally and substantively at the end of the Term as they are on the
date this Agreement takes effect.
2. The City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX will cease all unfavorable advertising, paid
ot unpaid media, public relations, website, and political efforts directed at or
about the other party, or the Project, except for purposes of putting forth the
City's opposition to the Project within the context of advocating for proposed
legislation during the Term.
3. The City wid CEMEX will jointly arrange, participate in, and be joined by key
mcmber(s) of the California Congressional delegation in a press conference and a
press statement t;,y January 31, 2007, announcing that the two parties are moving
forward together lo jointly develop solutions to the existing dispute, including, but
not limited to, the presentation to Members of Congress of a legislative package
for consideration and enactment during the 110th Session of Congress.
4. CEMEX and the City of Santa Clarita agree to work together in deploying the
necessary resources and cooperative efforts to seek implementation of solutions
agreed pursuant to this Agreement including, but not limited to, the passage of
the proposed federal legislation during the 1101h Session of Congress.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.6,pg.1
Principles for Cooperation

PE\ge Two
The adherence to the principles of this Agreement may .be extended beyond December
31, 2007 upon mutual agreement of the City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX.
'
. CEMEX Inc.
D
D
D.
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.6,pg.2
o.
D
D
D
D
D
PRINCIPLES FOR COOPERATION

BETWEEN
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AND
CEMEX Inc.
The Principle~/or Cooperation (Agreement) berween the City ofSanta Clarita, California (City)
and CEMEX inc. (CEMEX) (collectively "Parties") relating to the proposed Soledad Canyon
Sand and Gravel Mining Project expires 011 March 3l, 2012. The Parties, in conformance with
the provisions ofthe original agreement, firsl amended agreement, second amended agreement,
third amended agreement, fourth amended agreement, fifth amended agreement, sixlh amended
agreement, and seventh amended agreement below, agree to extend the Principles for
Cooperation/ or the period ofApril J, 2012 through May 31, 2012.
The following Principles for Cooperation (Agreement) between the City of Santa Clarita (City)
and CEMEX Inc. (CEMEX) (collectively "Parties''), relating lo the proposed Soledad Canyon
Sand and Gravel Mining Project (Project), are entered into this 8th day of January, 2007.
D
D
1. CEMEX agrees not to make any applications, notices or any other suhmittals to secure
or advance any federal, state, regional or local permits, notices, or seek review for any
approvals for the Project during the period beginning January l, 2007, and continuing
through December 31, 2007 (Tenn). The Parties agree to work to ensure that all pending
processes and pennit applications related to the Project are not advanced from their
current status, but also that these pending processes and applications do not lapse or are
otherwise prej udiced during the Term of this Agreement; with the clear intent to leave
both Parties in the same position procedurally and substantively at the end of the Term
as they arc on the date this Agreement takes effect.
2. The City of Santa Clarita and CEMEX will cease all unfavorable advertising, paid or
D
D
D
unpaid media, public relations, website, and political efforts directed at or about the other
party. or the Project, except for purposes of putting forth the City's opposition to the
Project within the context of advocating for proposed legislation during the Tenn.
3. The City and CEMEX will jointly arrange, participate in, and be joined by key
member(s) of the California Congressional delegation in a press conference and a press
lotatement by January 31, 2007, announcing that the two parties are moving forward
together to jointly develop solutions to the existing dispute, including, but not limited to,
the presentation to Members of Congress of a legislative package for consideration and
enactment during the 1101h Session of Congress.
4. CEMEX and the City of Santa Clarita agree to work together in deploying the necessary
resources and cooperative efforts to seek implementation of solutions
agreed pursuant to this Agreement includini, but not limited to, the passage of the
proposed fede ral legislation during the ++G -l-l-+1h I l 2'h Session of Congress.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.6,pg.3
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
Principles for Cooperalion

Page Two
The eElherettee le the prineiples eftfli!l ,",greelfteat ffl&)' l:le eKleAEleEI beye~emeer 31, 2007
upee HHllHal egreelfteat ef the City ef S&Ate Clarita ana CBMBX.
!Rt&-eehereaee te tae prineiples ef tflis Ag,eemeRt are eH~ftdeEI eeyeRd Deeemeer 3 l, 2QQ7, at1
eefttahmt iR !he e,igiAel egiree1ne1H AAa shall ee in el+eet fer lhe 13eriati JaRttttry I, 2008 tlnaygh
Jttne 39, 2998. The eElhereRee te the prifteiples ef this AgR,emeRt mey be extenEled beyeREI Jl:IRe
39, 2008 llpee Rntlttal agreeR\enl ef the City ef S1H1ta Clarita enEi C8MID<.
The afihereAee le lhe 13rineiplee ef this Agreement are e,tteaded heye11EI J"ttne 30, 2Q98, ae
eentaiRed ie lhe AffleRdeEI Ag,eemeHl Elaleti Deeember 7, 2998 &Bd shall be in effeet fer the
pertei Jttly 1, 2098 threugh Deeemeer 3 J, 2908. The adherenee te the prieeiples ef this
t',greemenl-ttlay ee e1ttenEle~ heyaae-9eeemher 3 I, ?.Q98 ui,en HH:llttal egt'eemeAl ef the City ef
Senta CIBfita BRd C~Ji.U;X.
The Hherenee te the prineiples eflhis Agreement ere e1tte1uled he)1eAd DeeeRlher 31, i!OQ8, es
eentaiAed in 1he A.ffiendeEI Agree1tteat dated JttAe 2G, 2998 and shall ee ia ef.Ieel ie, the peried
J1an1Bf)' 1, 2099 thre'tlgh DeeeR1eer 31, 2909. The adhereftee te the prieeiples ef this Ae,:eeme11t
mey ee e1tte11deEI heyenEI Deeemher 31, ;;H~99 Npea mutual agr-eemeal ef lhe City ef Santa Clari la
andCS:MBX.
The adherenee te the prineiples ef this Agff'emeel ai:e e1ttendeEI eeyeRd Deeember 31, 2999, es
ieeetained in the AmenEleEi Agreement Elated Deeemhe, 16, 2998 aed shall be in effeet fer the
peAeEI Jentiary 1, 2019 threugh Deeeml,e, 31, 2919. The edherenee te llle prieeiple!I ef lhis
~i,emeRt may he eKteAEIBEI he)'eAEI Deeemeer 31, 2910 upeA mutual agreement eflhe Cily ef
S&eta Clarita aml CBM6X.
l'he adherenee te the prineiples ef this AgN!emeAl aN! eJEteREled heyend Deeemher 3 I, 29 I9, a!I
eefflttiAed in !:he AffleHdee Agreemeet ElateEI ~le,emhe, 25, 2099 end shall ee ia eeet te the
peried leRttary 1,291 l threHgh J\:lee 39,201 I. The eihereAee te the prieeiples efthis
Ag1~ement me11y ee eKleRaea beyend Jttnt! 39, 291 I ltf'YR tftHhtal egreeffleitt ef lhe Cit) ef Senta
Clltfita aml CEMEX.
The 1ulhereeee te the prineiples ef this AgreeR1eRt Bl'e eKteeded beyoRi Jm,e 39, 2911 , as
eeHtaiReEI in the AmendeEI-Agr-eemeat dated Febraary 11, lQ 11 and shall be ie effeel-fef-t-1:ie
periee J"ttly I, 2011 threttgh Deeember 31, 2911 . The ael,ereeee te the i,riReiples ef this
AgreemeRt may be eMleReed be)'enEI Deeefflber 31, 29 I J 1:tpen ffttttual agreea1ent ef the City ef
Stmta Clarita aed CBMBX.
Tke adhereeee te the J3FiAeiples ef this Agreement are eKteREieil beyena Deeember 31, 2011, a!I
eeateiAeEI in the AR,eRElee AgreemeHt ~htlea JttHe 22, 2011 aAtl shell be iH effeet fer tl1e peried
Jant11U'Y I, 2912 thrattgh Mereh 3 l, 2012. Tke eElherenee te the priReiples ef lhis AgreemeRt
may ee ettleREled eeyeRd Me,eh 31, 2012 upee m1:tlt1al agreemeRt ef lhe C~ ef Seate Cl1uita
BAd CeM~X.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.6,pg.4
o.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
Princi.plcs for Cooperation

Page Three
The adherence lo tl,e principles of this Agreemenl are extended beyond March 31, 2012. as
conlained in the Amended Agreement dated November 21, 201 J and shall be in effect/or the
period Aprill, 2012 through M"Y JJ, 2012. The adherence to the principles ofthis Agreement
may be extended beyond May 31, 2012 upon mutual agreemenl ofthe City ofSanta Clarita and
CEMEX.
~
City Manager
City of Santa Clarita, California
Karl Watson, Jr.

President
CEMEX USA Inc.
Original Agreement Entered Into; January 8, 2007

Amended Agreement Entered Intu: December 7, 2007 (Amendment 1)
Amended Agreement Entered Into: June 26, 2008 (Amendment 2)
Amended Agreement Entered Into: December 16, 2008 (Amendmenl 3)
Amended Agreement Entered Imo: November 25, 2009 (Amendment 4)
Amended Agreement Entered Into: February l 1, 2011 (Amendment .5)
Amended Agreement Entered Into: J11ne 22, 2011 (Amendment 6)
Amended Agreement Entered Into: November 21, 2011 (Amendment 7)
Amended Agreement Entered Into: March 27, 2012 (Amendment 8)
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.6,pg.5
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

2800Collalle Way, Suire Wl623
www .blm.~ovka
In Reply Refer To
CA-20139
CA-22901
3600 (CA920) (P)
March 13, 2015
CERTIFlED MAIL NO: 7000 0520 0023 1388 4825

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Karl Watson, Jr.
President
CEMEX U.S. Operations
929 Gessner Road, Suite 1900
Houslon, Texas 77024
Dear Mr. Walson:
Comments by CEMEX represenlatjves al our recent meeting were underscored by recent news reports
that CEMEX has informed the City of Santa Clarita that it is beginning work on updating its permits.
You have publicly s1a1cd you intend to start operations al the Soledad Canyon mining project site. It
has now been over fourteen years since the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued its Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project. I am writing, in part, to
remind CEMEX about key provisions in that decision and in the contracts. I am also writing to open
discui,;sions regarding the resolution of issues associated with the contracts.
The BLM's approval in August 2000 is subject to significant conditions. First, CEMEX is required to
consult with and obtain approvals from the relevant regulatory agencies, including Los Angeles
County, the California Department of Conservation, the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, the California State Water Resources Control Board, the South Coao;t Air Quality Management
District, the Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. As the ROD notes, these agencies may require additional environmental analyses
before granting any permit.!i. CEMEX is also requia-ed to obtain any other permits or authorizations
required hy Jaw. It is the BLM's assessment that CEMEX has not completed the necesi;ary
consultations and has not obtained all of the necessary approvals and permits to begin operations. For
example, CEMEX has not obtained the necess ary General Industrial Activities Stormwater Pe1mit or
the South Coast Air Quality Management District permits for fueling and maintenance facilities,
equipment operations and dus t emissions discharge.
Second, CEMEX must comply with the Mitigation and Monitoring Program included in Appendix A of
the ROD, the mining reclamation plan provisions, and the bonding requirements described in the ROD.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex. 7, pg. 1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Since the BLM gave its conditional approval in 2000, CEMEX has failed to exercise due diligence in
fulfilling the terms of iL'i two mineral materials sales contracts. Over the years, the BLM has repeatedly
asked CF.MEX for a written schedule and timeline for completing required activities under the
contracts. Each lime the BLM made these requests, CEMEX cited an ongoing "truce" it had with the
City of Santa Clarita as the reason il had not yet secured the remaining permits. CEMEX entered into
its so-called "truce" with the City of Santa Clarita just after it had succeeded in lawsuits challenging its
development plans. The BLM was not a party to the "truce" between CEMEX and the City.
In fact, during the past fourteen years, the BLM provided extensive litigation support to CEMEX and
granted extended time for CEMEX to fulfill the contract terms while repeatedly asking for timelincs
and schedule~. CEMEX has not succeeded in producing mineral materials or informing BLM of a
clear plan for fulfilling the contract terms.
Moreover, during the intervening fourteen years i.ince the BLM conditionally approved the mining
project, the situation has dramatically changed. Traffic loads on local highways and roads have
changed. The San Gabriel National Monument was designated in 2014 and is adjacent to the mine site.
Environmental analysis is no longer current. and it is unlikely that prior environmental documentation
is adequate for the remaining permits. The opposition to the mining project hac; only grown stronger as
the population of the City of Santa Clarita has grown.
In light of all of the changed circumstances, the BLM no longer believes that the old environmental
analysis and record will be sufficient to support CEMEX in its efforts to obtain the remaining permits
and authorizations. It is unclear how, or if, this development can proceed. At this stage, CEMEX's
lack of diligence in fulfilling the terms of the contracts, coupled with changed circumstances, makes a
process to consider cancellation of the contracts legally available.
Despite CEMEX's lack of diligence and the BLM's view that cancelling the contract is now legally
viable, the BLM is willing to discuss whether there are other avenues for bringing this matter lo a close
without development of the mineral materials at this .site. The BLM would be open to exploring
available options. including some combination of administrative and legislative options.
Over the years, a variety of legislative proposals have failed, in part because they were founded on a
faulty understanding of CEMEX's interests. The fundamental misunderstanding is that CEMEX holds
some type of property interest, rather than recognizing that CEMEX has contractual obligations, which
it has not fulfilled. None of the Jcgislati ve proposals received support from the Department of the
Interior because the proposed legislation would have required taxpayer funds and public lands to buy
out contracts that CEMEX has not fulfilled and awarded exorbitant amoums of money not warranted
by the terms of the contracts. Under section 4 of the contracts, CEMEX does not take ti lie to any of the
mineral materials sold at the site until the materials are severed, extracted or removed from the ground.
In fact, CEMEX b. obligated to make payments for production, or non-production. No paymcnL'i
beyond the bid dcpm,it have been made. Consequently, today, because of CEMEX's own actions, it
does not have title to any of the mineral materials at the Soledad Canyon site.
During the past fornteen years, lhe BLM has supported CEMEX in litigation and done nothing to stand
in CEMEX's way to develop the materials under contract. Therefore, all of the delay in development
has been bused on CEMEX'~ own actions and with 11~ full agreement. For these reasons, we believe
CEMEX should reconsider the monetary dtm1ands it is making when negotiating any resolution of
Kirkmyer Deer.
Ex.7,pg.2
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
this matter. If CEMEX is willing to do so, we believe there is a way forward to resolve this matter
amicably in an open dialogue between CEMEX, the California congressional delegation, the City of
Santa Clarita and the BLM.
I look forward to working with you to resolve this important issue for California.
Sincerely,
cc:
Cliff Kirkmyer, Executive Vice President, Aggregates & Mining Resources, CEMEX USA
Mayor Laurene Weste, City of Santa Clarita
Supervisor Michael Antonovich, Fifth District
Senator Barbara Boxer, United Stales Senate
Senator Dianne Feinstein, United States Senate
Congressman Steve Knight, U.S. House of Representatives
Congresswoman Judy Chu, U.S. House of Representatives
Cong ressman Brad Sherman, U.S. House of Representatives
D
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.7,pg.3
D
D
D
D
II
II
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
March 27, 2015
VIA E-MAIL AND

FEDERAL EXPRESS
TRACKING# 7732 3749 7527
James G. KelUla
State Director
U.S. Department of the Interior
California Stale Office
2800 Cottage 'Way, Suite W1623
Re:
Soledad Canyon (CA-20139; CA. 22901)
Dear Mr. Kenna:

CEMEX is in receipt of your March 13, 2015 letter to Karl Watson, Jr., President
of CEMEX s U.S. Operations, regarding the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project
(the "Project"). CEMEX is surprised and disappointed by your letter, which makes numero~s
assertions regarding the status of the Project that are factually incorrect, antl wholly inconsistent
0
with the long history of communications between the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM ) and
CEMEX prior to your letter. The purpose of this letter is to correct the record on these matters,
and also to ensure that moving forward, the status of the Project is not further prejudiced by the
BLM now taking actions at odds with the Project Contracts (CA-20139 and CA-22901 ), and the
2000 BLM Record of Decision ("ROD") approving the Project.
1
D
D
D
D
D
First, I would like to address your suggestion that cancellation of the Contracts by
the BLM is now "legally viable." CF.MEX has done nothing to breach any of the tcnns of the
Contracts, and at no time prior to your March 13, 2015 letter has the BLM demanded or even
suggested that CEMEX undertake specific actions in order to maintain the valid status of the
Contracts. To the contrary, CEMEX has met with not only the BLM but also with
representatives of the Department of the Interior itself on multiple occasions over the years, in
order to keep BLM constantly and fully apprised of CEMEX's very public efforts to work with
the elected officials at the City of Santa Clarita and local community figures to define a mutually
agreeable solution, and also to keep BLM fully apprised of the Project status. In addition to our
recent meeting of February 25th, below arc just some of the meetings between CEMEX and
BLM/lnterior that have taken place over the past several years:
l5018'clvedere Road. W
mPalm Bl'acn. FL 3341l6. US/I, Phone (Sfil) 8335555
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.8,pg. 1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Mr. Jrunes G. Kenna

March 27, 2015
Page] 2
Late 2008 meeting with then-Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthomc, wherein
the Secretary supported the truce between CEMEX and the City of Santa Clarita
and the efforts to find a mutually acceptable resolution to the opproved Project
scope;
March 20, 2010 meeting with BLM Deputy Director Marcilynn Burke at the
Soledad site for a fact-finding visit and a community forum in Santa Clarita;
September/October 2010 meeting with Deputy Secretary of the Interior David
Hayes and BLM Deputy Director Marcilynn Burke to discuss legislative solutions
to the approved Project scope;
November 18, 2010 meeting with then Secretary of the Interior Salazar in
Washington, D.C. lo discuss legislative efforts lo find a mutually agreeable
solution for the Soledad Canyon Project;
February 27, 2013 meeting with BLM State Director Jim Kenna in Sacramento,
California to discuss the status of CEMEX1s continuing efforts to work with the
elected officials of the City of Santa Clarita to find a mutual legislative solution
and current options to pursue implementation of the approved Contracts;
May 30, 2013 meeting with BLM State Director Jim Kenna and City of Santa
Clarita representatives in Sacramento, California, to discuss continued
cooperation between the City and CEMEX, current status of the Contracts as
valid, and high value of the approved Project to CEMEX, and
Several meetings in and around 2014 with then-Deputy Director, and later BLM
Director Neil Komze; to review legislative solutions and current status.
During these meetings, neither the BLM nor Department of the Interior ever raised or suggested
any issue regarding CEMEX's diligence or the possibility that the Federal govenunent might
have any basis to assert breach of the Contracts relating to CEMEX's efforts to resolve on-going
issues with the City of Santa Clarita. In fact it was just the opposite, as it has always been BLM
policy to further the goals of outreach to the local community. Furthermore, on February 25,
2015, only a few weeks ago, several CEMEX representatives met with you at your request at
your Sacramento offices on Cottage Way to update you on CEMEX's efforts to move forward
with securing the remaining operating pennits to begin the Project. At no time during that hour
long meeting did you, or any other BLM representative, raise any claims or concerns about
CEMEX's diligence or the validity of the Contracts, or that these actions being contemplated by
CEMEX were somehow inadequate. Indeed, during this meeting, CEMEX discussed with you
CEMEX's potential interest in pursuing a version of the Project with a reduced-scale of
production, in large part to appease the concerns of the City of Santa Clarita. On behalf of BLM
you indicated support for such a proposal. Yet now,just a few weeks later, you have taken a
radical about-tum and appear to threaten CEMEX's interests. Ironically, rather than showing
support for CEMEX's willingness to pursue a reduced project that might he a "win-win" for the
City of Santa Clarita, BLM, and CEMEX, your letter now purports to use CEMEX's efforts to
achieve mutually agreeable solutions to the on-going Project dispute-efforts that BLM has been
aware of for seven ycars--as a lever against CEMEX to try to unravel the Contracts.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.8,pg.2
D
Mr. James 0. Kenna
March 27, 2015
Page 13
D
D
D
Second, CEMEX has significant concerns regarding your unsubstantiated

assertions that the environmental conditions in the Project vicinity have 11dramnticnlly changed."
Putting aside that BLM has never raised these concerns until your recent letter, nothing in your
letter provides any evidence whatsoever for the assertions made regarding traffic loads and the
like, not to mention the bald assertion that the "[e]nvironmental analysis is no longer current."
Nor were such facts or assertions ever raised during any prior meetings between the BLM and
CEMEX, including the recent February 25, 201 S meeting. Indeed, at that meeting we discussed
how only by seeking to obtain all remaining entitlements necessary for Project implementation
would the adequacy of the existing environmental analysis be examined. The ROD itself has
long been approved. The assertions advanced in your letter thus appear intended to undermine
the credibility of the existing environmental analyses, violating BLM's obligations to CEMEX
vis-a-vis the Contracts, and in tum, threatening direct and material impacts to CEMEX's interests
in the Contracts and the Project.
Third, your letter challenges the valuation that CEMEX has placed on its interests
in the Project in the context of contemplating legislation intended to appease the interests of
various stakeholders, most notably the City of Santa Clarita. Your letter takes pains to assert that
CEMEX has no property interests at stake here, but the reality is that CEMEX has a clear
property interest in the Contracts themselves. As a co-plaintiff in the joint CEMEX/USA lawsuit
against the County of Los Ang eles, you should of course be aware U1at U.S. District Judge
Dickran Tevrizian made clear in one of his rulings that CEMEX does in fact have a protectable
property interest in the Contracts themselves. 1 A loss of the Project to CEMEX would result not
only in the loss of a significant investment, but also lost opportunity costs and the like. Again,
the discussion in your letter appears intended more to undermine the valuation of CEMEX's
interests in the Project and thereby undermine any further e fforts to pursue viable City of Santa
Clarita-endorsed legislative solutions, than to credibly characterize CEMEX's actual interests in
the Contracts and Project under the law.
D
D
D
Fourth, the ovcra lJ tone of your letter suggests the BLM is considering
withdrawing its support for the Project, notwithstanding its obligations under the Contracts ru1d
its testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources on
November 20, 201 3, in which it advocated its support for implementation of the Project. It
appears that the BLM, for reasons we cannot fathom, may now be intent on directly and
materially damagjng CEMEX by negatively impacting its interests in the Contracts and in the
Project. As such, it bears repeating that CEMEX was both surprised and disappointed by your
letter, to the point that the goals of the letter are frankly unclear to us. To the extent that the
letter is intended lo provide some type of formal demands n f, or notice to, CEMEX under the
Contracts or the underlying statute and regulations, it fails to do so with any clarity. If that is,
however, the BLM's intent, then CEMEX requests that the BLM provide such fonnal demands in
lndced, this ruling was consis lcnt with well-established law that contracts with lhe federal govcrrunent give rise to
protectahlc property interests fo r purposes of the fedcrd Takm,gs Clause. See Ly11ch v. Un ired States, 292 U.S. 571,
579, 54 S. Ct. 840, 843 (1934) ("Valid contracts are property, whether the obhgor be a privale individual, a
municipality, a stat1:, or the United Slates").
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.8,pg.3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Mr. James G. Kenna

March 27, 2015
Page 14
a clearly drafted manner, and that CEMEX be allowed its full rights to address and cure any
ullcgcd default, to the extent there is any, under the Contracts in accordance with 43 CFR
3601.62.
CEMEX of course remains open to further dialogue with you to resolve the many
assertions in your letter.
Very truly yours,
(IciJt>f/A_ 4,,,0-0,,Cliff Kirkrnyer

Executive Vice President,
Aggregates and Mining Resources
CEMEX, Inc.
cc:
Mayor Laurene Weste, City of Santa Clarita

Senator Barbara Boxer, United States Senate
Senator Dianne Feinstein, United States Senate
Congressman Brad Sherman, U.S. House of Representatives
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.8,pg.4
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Cali fornia S1111e Offic~
2800 Cntlagc Wuy, Suite W 162?>
Sacr:unenlo, CA 9582.5
www.hJm.gov/ca
APR 17 2015
/11 Reply Refer To:
/84/
CA-9/0(P)
CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Cliff Kirkmycr
Executive Vice President
Aggregates and Mining Resources
CEMEX,lnc.
1501 Belvedere Road
West Palm Beach, PL 33406
Dear Mr. Kirkmyer:
Thank you for your letter of March 27, 2015, which responded to my letter of March 13, 2015, to
Karl Watson regarding the Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Mining Project. In my March 13, 2015,
letter, as you arc aware, I reminded CEMEX of its obligations under the contracts and noted that
CEMEX not only has not obtained most of the approvals required by the 2000 Record of Decision
(ROD), but has failed to provide a timeline for fulfilling the contract tenns despite numerous BLM
requests. I also indicated that there may be problems with existing environmental documentation due
to changing circumstances over time and asked that you reconsider your monetary demands, noting
that the delay in implementing the contracts wa.,; caused by CEMEX, not BLM. On review, I
continue to find the content of my letter to be a fair and accurate description of the present situation.
In response to your request that BLM provide a fonnal demand, by this letter BLM is officially
requesting that CEMEX provide documentation of actions it has taken to meet the requirements of
the contracts and ROD. The information provided should include a detailed explanation of specific
actions CEMEX has taken to meet its obligations under the contracts and to secure each of the
permits and approvals required by the ROD, with the dates the actions were taken and the status of
each process. We would also like you to provide the governmental office contacts for each of the
permits and approvals required by the ROD. Please provide the above information within 30 days of
your receipt of this Jetter.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.9,pg.1
D
...
0,
D
D
cc:
Mayor Marsha McLean, City of Santa Clarita

Senator Barbara Boxer, United States Senate
Senator Dianne foinstein, United States Senate
Congressman Hrad Sherman, U.S. House of Representatives
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.9,pg.2
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~~h\ 'o,-\--
\0
Exhibit 10
E,chibit is redacted by BLM pending determination of confidentiality
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D

Ca liforn ia State Office
2800 Cottage Way, Suite Wl623
www.blm.gov/ca
In Reply Refer To:

3600 (CA920) (P)
CA-20139
CA-22901
RECEIVED
.JUN 18 2015
CERTIFIED MAIL NO: 7012 3460 0000 5883 4315

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Cliff Kirkmyer, Executive Vice President
CEMEX, Aggregates Division
1501 Belvedere Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
Re:
Soledad Canyon Sand, Contract Nos. CACA 20139 and CACA 22901
Dear Mr. Kirkmyer:

Thank you for your timely response to our April 17, 2015, request. I received your letter of May 22,
2015, via e-mail on that day and appreciate the efforts taken to compile the requested information. l
also acknowledge your concern regarding the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) authority to
reque:,:;t the information identified in my letter. At our last meeting on April 28, 2015, I noted thal the
rcqui:st for infonnation is based on BLM's general authority to administer authorizations for use of the
public lands and its resources. This authority is found in FLPMA section 302 (43 U.S.C. 1732), which
provides the general authority for BLM to manage the use, occupancy, and development of the public
land:,; (see also 43 CFR 3601.3, Authority). Without an ability to monitor land use authorization, BLM
would not he able to meet this congressional mandate. As such, BLM's request for this information is
based on statutory and regu]atory provisions. Contrary to the position taken in your letter, we do not
believe submission of this information is voluntary and al lhe discretion of CEMEX.
The BLM understands that CEMEX is concerned about the sensitive nature of this project and its desire
to maintain low-key discussions concerning the status and future aspects of the contracts. However, we
have received a number of informal inquiries about the status of the project and BLM's plans related to
it. As you know, there is a great deal of public interest in this project, and we must be responsive to
Congress and to the public.
You refer to confidentiality provisions of stulutcs and regulations in footnote 2 of your letter, and
indicate you will not share, nor "consent to disclosure by BLM of this letter or any of the information
in the letter" because such disclosures would be contrary to the statutes you cite. Your letter did not
specifically identify nor segregate the information you believe is confidential from the non.confidential
information. While it is the Bureau's responsibility to determine what information is or is not
confi dential and to maintain it as such, in order to make a con fidentiality determination regarding
commercial information, BLM generally seeks the assistance of the submitter of the information.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.11,pg.1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
I ask that you identify each portion of the letter for which you claim confidentiality, and provide a
certification lo that effect. As staled above, I believe the infonnation submitted in your May 22, 2015,
letter was a required, rather than a voluntary submission~and therefore I ask that you explain how
disclosure of the information would result in substantial competitive or business hann to your
company. Alternatively, if you believe you can support your position that the information was not a
required submission, please explain why you believe you have voluntarily submitted this infonnation to
the BLM.
Additionally, because your letter appears to be primarily a timeline of certain events and compilation of
facts, you may wish to provide your views on why the infonnation reflected in your letter has not
already been disclosed to the public or is information that is not routinely available to the public from
other sources. Your explanations, discussions, and views will assist us in determining whether the
letter and the information contained in it are confidential, however your position may not be
determinative of these issues. Once we receive your response, we will make a determination as to
confidentiality. Please note that any reasonably segregable portion of your letter may be released after
we make our confidentiality detennination. You may find it helpful to refer to FOIA and its
implementing regulations in developing your response (see in particular 43 C.F.R Part 2, Subpart F).1
I have a few additional questions regarding the various actions and permits that you addressed in your
response. CEMEX has listed several items as not yet formally submitted or as being premature for
submission at this time. While I understand certain permits are obtained just before operations begin, I
am interested in your good faith estimated timeline to begin construction and operations, the time
needed to secure, and your explanation as to why CEMEX has not yet secured, the following
authorizations:
County of Los Angeles

o Building Permits
o Code Compliance
Los Angeles County Department of Health, Local Enforcement Agency

o Hazardous Materials Handler Permit
California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region

o General Industrial Activities Stonn Water Permit pursuant to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
o Section 401 Water Quality Certification
South Coast Air Quality Management District

o Pcnnit for Fueling and Maintenance
o Equipment Operations
o Dust Emissions Discharge
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

o
Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit
California Department of Fish and Game

o Section 1603 Stream/Lake Alteration Pennit
Ki~fiWOl:fti~r! formal FOIA request concerning your May 22, 2015, Jetter.
communications may become subject to a FOIA request in the future.
However, we anticipate
t~,l~et,, pg. 2
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
You also indicat~d that CEMEX would continue to review its progress in completing the plans and
obtaining the permits required for this project and that you would possibly be providing a more
comprehensive responsf!. If you have additional information that is responsive to this or our April 17,
2015, request, please include the additional infonnation in your response to this request. Please
provide your response to this letter within 15 days of receipt.
You have also requested a meeting to discuss your May 22, 2015, response and BLM's position related
to the status of the project. We are interested in such a meeting, but suggest that the meeting be held to
explore whether there arc potential paths forward to satisfy the interests of all parties. Such a meeting
could be held after we evaluate any additional information you provide.
If you have questions related to this letter, please contact Mark Chatterton, Energy and Minerals
Branch Chict: at 916-978-4383.
Sincerely,
D
D
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.11,pg.3
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Exhibit 12
Exhibit is redacted by BLM pending determination of confidentialltv
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
:e
')<.
~'1:>; +-
13
D
D
D
D
~fSNL Metals &Mining
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.13,pg.1
D
Executive Summary
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Of all the developed nations, unexpected and often

unnecessary de lays in obtaining mining permits afflict
the U.S. most severely. Despite being blessed with a vast
reserve ol m inera l resources, the U.S. only accounts for
7 percent of world-wide spending on mineral exploration
and production is currently rel iant on a population of
mature mi ni ng projects. The average remaining life of
active mines i n the U.S. and the share of projects in
advance development have al so fallen in recent years.
Meanwh ile, t he demand for minerals to supply the
defense, advanced energy, high-tech electron ics, medical,
and transportat ion industries is ris ing. The U.S., whi le
leading on the manufacturing of these technologies, is
lagging in the production of the minerals needed to
make t hem .
SNL Metals & Mining quantifies tor the first time
how much permitting delays impair and discourage
investments in mineral development projects. It found that
on average, a typical mining project loses more than
one-third of its value as a resu lt of unexpected delays in
receiving the numerous permits needed to beg in
production. The longer the wait, the more the value of the
rnvestment is reduc ed, even to t he extent that the project
ul timately becomes an unviable investment. The report
also shows t he increasing likelihood of new mines
stagnating at the exploration stage, with far fewer
adva ncing to actual production, putt ing security of the
co untry's mi neral supply at risk.
In t he U.S., the requ irement for m ultiple permits and
multip le agency involvement is the norm, as is the
invol vement of ot her stakeholders, including local
indigenous groups, the general public and nongovernmental
organizations. As a consequence of the country's inefficient
permitting system, it takes on average seven to 10 years to
secure the permits needed to commence operat ion s in the
U.S. To put that into perspective, in Canada and Australia,
countries with similarly stringent environmental regulations,
the average permitting period is two years.
In these countries, the timeline for the government to
respond is more clearly outlined, the specification of lead
agenc ies is clearer and the respon sibi lity for preparing a
wel l-structu red environmental review is given to the min ing
company, not the government.
Mining is a long-term investmen t; from exploration
to closure and site remediation, proj ects typically have
a life span of several decades. Although geology and
topography dictate wh ere a deposit is located and how
it is mined, it is economics that determ i nes whether the
Perm1tt " &. Econom ic Value and Mining 1n the United St ates
Kirkmyer Deel.
project proceeds or not. Even a large high-grade deposit

wi II remai n unmined if the revenue-cost balance and
t imetable are not advantageous.
Mining companies accept that there will always be some
element of delay during the development period and will
build appropriate contingency and mitigation measures
into th eir busi ness plan. However, delays for unforeseen
reasons, or the delays to the expected process, are a real
problem for the ind ustry, and by extension, the U.S.
economy as a who le.
KEY FINDINGS
Unexpected de,ays in the permittmg process alone
reduce a ty p ca l mining project's value by more than
one-th ird .
The higher costs and increased risk that often arise
from a prolonged permitting process can cut the
expected va lue of a mine in half before production
even begins.
The c ombined impact of unexpected, and openen ded, delays and higher costs and risks can lead to
mining projects becoming financially unviable.
EXAMPLES
The Rosemont Copper project in Arizona continues in 1!s
attempts to secu re permits, five years after the originall vplanned start date of 2010. Over this period, the value of
the proj ect has fallen from $18 billion to $15 billion
despite much higher copper prices.
The Kensi ngton gold mine in Alaska was plagued by
permitting issues during development. It commenced
production in 20 10, nearly 20 years after the originally
planned start date of 1993. By the time the mine opened,
th e capital cost of building the mine had increased by
4 9 percent, and the company llad reduced planned gold
production by nearly a third, to focus mining operations
on the most profitable part of the deposit only.
Twin Metals Mi nnesota is stw ll in a relatively early stage
of the perm itting process, completing a prefeasibility study
in 201 4 . The developers have acknowledged that the delay
in receiving permits. or the possibility of denial, could be
a signif icant business risk to the project.
www.SNLmetals.com I 07
Ex.13,pg.2
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
3. THE FINANCIAL COST OF CHANGE
There are a significant number of factors that affect the

operating and financial performance of a mine as have
been discussed in section two. To illustrate the importance
of sequencing of revenue and expenditure over the life
of a project, SNL has developed a financial model for a
simulated gold mine: Enterprise. This hypothetical U.S.
project was the subject of a Feasibility Study in 2015,
which envisaged an 11-year mine life with production
beginning in 2018 (see Annex A for model details).
SIMULATED INCREMENTAL COSTS
2017 $15 million in environmental cost has

been added in 201 6 and 2017, and an
annual $2 million water treatment charge
is added for 10 years from 2018. This
increases the total capital cost from the
$370 million estimated in the Feasibility
Study to $420 million. The extra costs
reduce the project's value by 12 percent,
from $291 million to $256 million.
2018-2019 Additional environmental costs of $50
million are incurred in 2018 and $20
million in 2019. This increases the total
capital cost to $490 million. The
additional costs reduce the proJect's value
by a total 28 percent from $291 million
to $209 million.
2020-2022 A further water treatment charge of $10
million was paid in 2020, and an extra
annual $2 million 1s estimated for 16
years after 2022. This increases the
total capital costs from the $370 mi Ilion
estimated in the Feasibility Study to
$532 mill ion. This ultimate cost of
$532 mill ion (44 percent more than the
original estimate) is based on case
studies from the North American
mining industry.
To illustrate the impact permitting delays have on
a project's finances, three scenarios were developed:

Scenario 1. Incremental costs -Additional costs to meet
unexpected permitting requirements are incurred but
production is not delayed.
Scenario 2. Production lags - Development time for the
mine is extended due to unexpected permitting delays, so
production is "on hold" for a period.
Scenario 3. Additional risk - Prolonged delays lead to
changes that affect the discount rate investors use to assess
the mine's value.
For eact, of these scenarios, the simulation contrasts the

proiected cash flows for the project with that of the original
Feasibility Study. The impact of these changes are observed
by taking " snap shots" of the mine's finances at two-year
intervals after the initial st udy.
3.1 SCENARIO 1 INCREMENTAL COSTS
Having applied for environmental permits in 2015, the
Enterprise project was originally expected to reach
product ion in 2018. However, t he findings from the
environmental assessment required changes to the mine
plan. The company, in order to meet its 2018 production
deadline, spent more money dunng the construction and
early-product ion phases.
TABLE 1 CHANGES TO TOTAL INVESTMENT AND MINE

VALUE DUE TO INCREMENTAL COSTS
Feasi l>ili ty Study (20 l 51

2017
In this model, the costs envisaged in the original study

are Increased on three subsequent occasions. Table 1 shows
the extra costs required to meet the permit requirements,
the impact t his has on total invest ment and the resultant
lower valve of the project.
In t he Feasibility Study, costs linked specifically to the
environment were put at $50 mill ion, with the total project
investment estimated at $370 mi llion. The feasibility
study assessed the value of t he mine at $291 million.
2019
2021
Kirkmyer Deel.
370
291
256
420
490
209
212
532
194
Assum111g a I other factors unchanged, and discount rate o1 8 percent

includes $1 mil lion per year water control costs
Includes $3 million per yt ar water control costs
Source: SNL Metal s & Mining
In this scenario, the t iming of start-up, and the project's

assumed risk are left unchanged.
Permitting. Econorn1c Val ue and Mining in the United States
50**
100
170
Al! proiect valuat ans are r:alculated al a discount rate of 8 percent
www.S NLmetals.com 110
Ex.13,pg.3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
continued
In aggregate, the additional costs reduce the project's

value by 33 percent from $291 million to $194 million.
This calculated value represents only 37 percent of the
capital invested in the project. compared with the
79 percent estimated in the Feasibility Study. These
changes are certainly detrimental to the attractiveness of
the venture but are probably not sufficient to render the
project unviable (Figure 2).
To illustrate the extent these incremental costs impact
the total financ ial f lows for the mining f irm , Figure 3
reflects these increases as relative to every $100 spent by
the mine. Initially, it was assumed $100 would be spent in
the construction of the mine in 2015, which would increase
to $173 in the next year and so on. As the mine
experiences its increased environmental permitting
compl iance cost, construction costs have increased to $203
in 2016 {$30 higher) than anticipated.
The incremental cost changes in 2016-2017 reflect the
costs incurred as the company reacts to findings from the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and acts
appropriately to qualify for its permits. In 2018, these extra
costs fa ll as the company "holds" construction, awaiting its
permits to come through.
In 2019, the full impact of these extra costs, induced by
permitting requirements, can be seen. With in the original
plan, the mine would have spent $236 in this year; instead,
it needs to spend an additional $105, nearly 70 percent
more than envisaged.
FIGURE 2 EFFECT OF INCREMENTAL COSTS ON
CUMULATIVE CASH FLOWS
FIGURE 3 PROJECTED INCREMENTAL COST

400
350
300
250
150
100
50
..,_..,_.-.,,....,.-ll.,
Of-9"-r9~.._,..._..,...... ......
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
201s 2021
Source: SNL Metals & Mining
As tile mine goes into production in 2018, t he incremental

production costs experienced each year can be seen in the
Figure 3. While they taper off after 2020, for every $100 in
costs the mine was expecting to spend, it has to face an
additional $4 for each of the remaining years of production.
Incremental costs and the impact on the financ ial fl ows
of the project, as a result of extensive changes required to
meet perm itting criterion, can be illustrated by a real mine:
the Rosemont Copper mine in Arizona.
CASE STUDY: ROSEMONT COPPER MINE -ARIZONA
Location:
30 kmsoutheast of Tucson, Arizona
Current owner:
HudbayMinerals Inc. (80 percent)
Discovery:
1985
Original planned slart-up:
201 O
800
Actual production:
Awaiting permits
600
Rosemont Copper, owned by Hudbay Minerals Inc .

(acquired from Augusta Resources Corp. in July 2014 ).
is an open-pit copper/mo lybdenum/silver deposit located
in Arizona . It is expected to be one of the largest copper
mines in the U.S. and, as currently designed, could
account for 10 percent of current U.S. copper production.
400
e
0
~ 200
...
:I:
-200
-400
-
20,s
2021
Permitting. Economic Vallie and Mining in the United States
Kirkmyer Deel.
The Rosemont Copper deposit was discovered in the

1960s by Anaconda and Anamax, with Asarco purchasing
t he rights to the land and deposit in 1987-1988 . In
1998, the company planned to bring the project into
production by 20 10.
Ex.13,pg.4
D
D
continued
D
D
D
TABLE 2 CHANGES TD ROSEMONT COPPER MINE FEASIBILITY STUDIES
II
Cathode (klb)
Copper (klb)
D
D
Gu/d (hoz)
Silver (koz)
Molybdenum (klb)
Total Revenue ($ 1ODD)

Initial Capital Costs {$ 1000)
Operating Costs ($ 1000)
D
D
..
11'
..
Minera IProduction
113 960
155,514
3,909,600
4,077.220
262
47,899
5,108.580
31
300
354
35
50 081
59,958
25
39
81.000
95,016
112,680
13,133,132
13.028 594
19,216.579
46
916,806
990.403
1,253,844
37
4,336 278
4,679.882
7,149,473
65
Pre-produclion Cost ($ IDDD)
68 482
48,068
116,100
70
Reclamation Bond Fee ($ 1000)
17,956
18,974
11,043
-38
Reclamation Expenses($ 1000)
23,941
25,298
34.657
Sou rce: based on Nl-401 Technical Reports issued by the compa ny in 2007, 2009, 20 12. Accessed via <www.SEDAR.com;.
In 2005, the project changed hands once again, being
acqu ired by Augusta for $20.8 mill ion. The company
estimated capital costs to develop the project at $636806 mil lion. In July 2007, the company submitted its
mine plan to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which wou Id
init iate t he EIS and public consultation processes. The
company expected to receive approval for construction
by 2009 and production to commence by 2010. By
December of that year, Augusta had begun to place orders
for the purchase and delivery of equ ipment required for
the construction of the mine. By April 2008, the company
had awarded a $56 million engineering procurement
construction management contract.
By 2009, the mine development and processing facil ity
construction were expected to cost $713 million, part of the
$897 million required to develop the project as a whole.
Mining was expected to start at the end of 2011 , with the
first copper cathode produced in March 2012.
By the end of 2009, the company had received its ground
water withdrawal permit and state approval of its
reclamat ion permit. but awaited three other major approvals
(State Aq uifer Protection Permit, Air Emissions Permit, and
a Un ited States Army Corps of Engineers I USACOE] Section
40 4 Permit) before constru ction could begin. The USFS
initially informed the company of a delay in the draft EIS
from November 2009 to February 2010, with the first draft
Permitting. Economic
Value and Mining in the United States
Kirkmyer Deel.
45
being finally delivered in November 2010. The company

expected a final EIS and Record of Decision (RoD) to be
submitted by early 201 1. A few months after the USFS
scheduled January 2012 for the RoD, the company
continued to plan construction in the third quarter of 2012.
In April, it received its Aquifer Protection Permit from
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ),
with the total number of key permits received rising to six.
The Clean Water Act Section 404 and Air Quality remained
the only major permits yet to be approved, although the
company expected to rece ive these by the end of 2012.
By November, 90 percent of the company's permitting
process was complete, and the final issuance of the EIS
and RoD remained.
In January 2013, the Air Qua I ity Permit was rece ived,
with only the Clean Water Act Section 404 Perm it from
the USACOE remain ing. Augusta expected to receive this
permit when the RoD on the Plan of Operations from the
USFS was given. The company expected to start
production in the summer of 2013. The company had,
by this t ime, signed off-take agreements for nearly
70 percent of its projected mine output.
Th e final EIS and draft RoD were pub I ished in
December 2013 , two years later than intended, with
objec tions to be fil ed by February 2014. With extensive
comments and objections received to the final El S, the
www SNLrn~tal~.com
12
Ex. 13,pg.5
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
continued
Regional Forester required more time than the 30-day

period to draft his response. In May 2014, Coronado
National Forest requested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) relnitiate formal consultat ion for the Rosemont
Copper project to address issues of endangered species.
The RoD would not be signed until the completion of
the consultation.
In July 2014, Hudbay acquired control of Rosemont
Copper from Augusta Resources (for $520 million),
although its due di ligence process reported t hat, "Hudbay
believes Augusta's management continues to be overly
optimistic about the permitting timeline ... With Hudbay's
significant technical expertise and superior financial
capacity, Hudbay believes it is better positioned than
Augusta to advance the Rosemont Copper project t hrough
the fina l stages of permitting and into construction ... "
This delay reduced th e project's current value. rt the

project had proceeded, as scheduled in 2010, the value
of the project t o i nvestors was $18 bil lion in 2007 .2
With the delay to 2015, the val ue of t he project for
investors has fa llen to $ 15 bi llion in 2007, even though
expected revenues for the project had increased (Table 2).
The investors wi ll receive their return s later than expected,
and thus the value of the project for them is lower. What is
not reflected in Figure 4 is the hold ing cost for the
company, incurred between 2007 and 201 5.
FIGURE 4 CHANGES IN PROJECTED CASH FLOW FOR
ROSEMONT COPPER MINE
12
10
In March 2015, litigation led to the revocation of

Rosemont's Air Qua I ity Control Permit. As of this date,
Hudbay lacks two major perm its before it can move into
construction, and sti II awaits the final RoD.
Three feasibility studies have been released for the
Rosemont Copper mine, in 2007, 2009 and most recently
in 2012. Each subsequent study has reassessed the mine
operat ions, with resultant changes in production levels and
revised estimates for costs of construction, production and
revenues. Table 2 shows the changes in project plans in
each subsequent feasibility study.
Between 2007 and 2012, as the project continued
to wait for permits to be approved, the company's mine
plans changed. In terms of production, the most notable
change is the removal of cathode product ion-a value
added product from copper concentrate. Total projected
revenues from the project rose by 46 percent, between
2007 and 201 2. However, the initial capital costs to
construct the project increased by 37 percent and the
operating costs by a further 67 percent over the same
time. Pre-product ion costs increased by 70 percent, with
estimates for reclamation expenses up by 45 percent.
C'?
,...
C"',1
S1udy2012 -
U")
0)
t'I
C>
N
S1udy 2007
Source: based on N 1-401 Technica l Reports issued by the

company in 20 07 , 2 009 , 2 0 12. Accessed via <www.
SEDAR .corn >
Each of the studies states the construction period to be

three years; however, the start of production is delayed from
the original 2010 (in the 2007 stL1dyl to 2015 (in the
2012 study). Figure 4 shows the changes in projected cash
flows in the technical studies published in 2007 and 2012.
The flows have shifted outwards reflecting the delay
in prodL1ction.
~ at a discount rate of 8 percent
Permitting, Econorn,c Value ilnd Min ng in the United States
Kirkmyer Deel.
www.S NLmetals.corn I 13
Ex.13,pg.6
D
D
3. THE FINANCIAL COST OF CHANG E
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
continued
TIMELINE - ROSEMONT COPPER MINE

1987 -1988 Asarco purchased the copper reserves and 486
hectares of Arizona. land wit hout mineral potential
for1$1 million in cash and conducted assessment
work.
1993 Asarco reported no near-term plans to develop the
project 1but continued to conduct-assessment work
annually.
1998 In February, plans for the copper mine were on
hold due to low copper prices. Asarco stated that
it:must spend money on current operations rather
than on future development. The company
planned on bringing Rosemont Copper on stream
in 2012.
2005 In June, Augusta entered into an agreement to
acquire Rosemont Copper for $20.8 million
payable over three years. In September, a
prefeasibil ity study on a 54,000-73,000 tons/day
copper-molybdenum mine' and miiling complex
and a corresponding technical report were planned
for completion in the March 2006 quarter.
2009 Augusta received state approval of its reclamation
plan at Rosemont Copper. As of February 2009.
Augusta had received a 20-year groundwater
w
withdrawal permit. The.company required five
other rnaior approvals before construction could
commence, including a reclamation permit: state
aquifer protection permit. air ~missions perm.it.
and an USACOE Section 404 permit.
2011 Rosemont Copper submitted to the ADEQ an
application for an Air Quality Permit. Rosemont
ftled a lawsuit against Pima Country over perm.it
delays, for not meeting the 30-day timeframe after
the county declared application complete.
2012 The proJect obtained the Aquifer Protection Permit
from ADEQ. The USFS published a draft EIS open
to public comments. More than 25,000 comments
were submitted and all substantive comments
were 1dent1fled. coded and organized.
2013 Rosemont received the Air Quality permit for the
Rosemont project from ADEQ. Fourieen
individuals and groups sued County Superior Court
against water quality permit.
2014 Surface Water Quality Mitigation Plan approved by
AOEQ This meant that R1semont Copper received
its Clean Water 40 , certificate, which is required
before the 404 certificate from the USACOE.
2015 Supenor Court of Anzon;1 Maril:opa reversed ADEQ
d ec1s1on to approve t h~ Air Quality Permit. The
permit application was ordered to return again
to ADEQ for further c onsideration using the
Droper cntend.
Permitting, Econom ic Va
ue and
Mining in the United States
Kirkmyer Deel.
3.2 SCENARIO 2 - PRODUCTION LAGS

In the second simu lat ion, the production from the
Enterprise mine is delayed by one year on each of three
subsequent occasmns. The production lag is based on real
examples in t he Nort h American mining industry and is
con siderably less onerous than the delays suffered by
some projects, for example th e Kensington gold mine in
Alaska. The capital and operating costs and assumed risk
of the mine are left unchanged. Th e model assumes
an annual 8 percent discou nt rate to value t he future
cash flows.
SIMULATED PRODUCTION LAGS
2019 There is a one-year lag in reaching commercial
product ion, which now commences in 2019
rather than 2018. The total capital costs
remain unchanged at $370 million. as does the
timing of this expenditure (although in reality,
a delay would likely cause capital costs to
increase slightly). The delay reduces the
project's calculated value by 14 percent from
- $291 million to $250 million.
2020 There 1s a further one-year lag in the start of
commercial production, which 1s now expected
to start in 2020. This reduces the project's
value by a total of more than 27 percent from
$291 million to $211 million.
2021 Production is now expected in 2021, with all
other factors remaining unchanged. This
reduces the project's value by almost 40 percent
from $291 million to under $176 million. This
value represents 4 7 percent of the capital
invested in the proiect, compared with the
79 percent envisaged in the Feas1b11ity Study.
Table 3 shows the total revenue and investment for the

project, which have not been changed in this model.
However, the delay in production shifts the revenue stream
for the project further into the future, while costs remain as
they were. The current value of the mine's cash flow
declines for each consecutive year of delay.
www.SMlrnetals.com I 14
Ex. 13,pg.7
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
continued
over the life of the mine. The value of that revenue to

investors is only $1,036 million, as they are received later
rather than sooner.
TABLE 3 CHANGES TO TOTAL INVESTMENT AND MINE

VALUE DUE TO DELAYED PRODUCTION
Feasibi lily Study (2015)
2,020
2,020
2,020
2,020
2017
2019
2021
370
370
370
370
291
250
211
176
01scount rate of 8%

These changes are less detrimental to the financial
attractiveness of the venture than the extra-cost scenario in
the first model. Although the total delay of three years in
the start of commercial production reduces the project's
value by almost 40 percent, it is not, in itself, a fatal
development. Figure 5 shows the changed cash flow profile
as production delays are experienced, resulting in a delayed
breakeven year for the project.
FIGURE 5 EFFECT OF PRODUCTION DELAYS ON
CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW
For every year of delay, the revenue stream is pushed

further into the future and its value is reduced.
Figure 6 illustrates the loss in value to investors. The
pie represents the value of the total revenue initially
expected from the project ($1,036 million). A one-year
delay causes revenues to lose 7 percent of their present
value. A two-year delay in production increases this loss
to 14 percent of the expected value, and three years
exacerbates th 1s to 21 percent.3
Therefore, for every $100 in revenue, a one-year delay
reduces the value to $93, a two-year delay to $86 and a
three-year delay to $79.
A real life example of this cost is provided by the
Kensington gold mine in Alaska, which suffered persistent
production delays due to permitting issues. Originally
expected to start in 1993, the mine finally began
production in 2010. As the revenue stream for the mine
has been pushed out further, its design has been changed
to accommodate the delay in production.
FIGURE 6 LOSS IN CURRENT VALUE OF EXPECTED
REVENUE FROM DELAYS
\ ,000
BOO
600
D
D
400
!i
200
-400
-2015
-2021
Source: SNL Metals & M ining

S0L1rr.e,
In more s mpl ifi ed terms, to gauge the value of the delay

in revenue stream, we assume the total revenue rece ved
from the mine has remained unchanged at $2,020 million
Initial Plan (1990)

Fmal Plan (2006
1993
2010
SNL Metals & Mrning
ass um ing a d scount rate of 8 percent
195
290
225
302
l.32
0.44
200.000
135,000
Source SN L Metals & Mining

Perrmtt1ng. Econom c Va!11e and Min ng 1n the Un ited States
Kirkmyer Deel.
www.Smmetal~.corn I
15
Ex. 13,pg.8
-0
D
D
D
D
D

continued
CASE STUDY: KENSINGTON GOLD MINE - ALASKA

Location:
72 km north of Juneau. Alaska
Current own er:
Coeur Mining, Inc. {100 percent)
Discovery:
1897
1993
20l0 Uune)
Planned production:
Actual production:
Source : SNL Metals & Mining
D
D
D
D
The Kensington gold mine has a long h istory of

exploration, design changes and permitting revisions. The
property was acquired from a Texas-based oi I company for
$20 million in early 1987, and an equal joint venture was
established between the operator Echo Bay Mines and
Coeur Mining. The latter acquired Echo Bay's 50 percent
interest in 1995 for $32.5 million plus a scaled Net
Smelter Return royalty payment.
Producti on was in itially expected to start in 1993;
however, with permitting delays, the mine only reached
commercial production 17 years after planned. Table 4
shows the difference the delay in production meant
for operations.
Th e mi ne'.was ori gi nally slated to cost $195 mi llion to
construc t, with production costs expected to be $225 per
ounce. The m ine would excavate 1.32 million tons of ore,
with an expected gold production of 200,000 ounces
per year.
D
D
By the time of the feasibility study for the final m ine plan
in 2006, produc tion had been delayed to 2010. The cap ital
cost for construct ing the mine had increased by 49 percent
to $290 million. In the years between the initial and the
f inal study, production costs had escalated, and it would
now cost 34 percent more to produce an ounce of gold
than initially forecasted . In the 2006 plan, the company
downgraded its intended production, reducing the size of the
mined ore output by nearly one-third, resulting in lower gold
produc tion each year.
Ken sington's 17-year production delay can be a traced
back to a number of permitt ing issues. The mining
company requ ired the following major permits:
USFS approval for Plan of Operation {PoO);
USACOE's Section 404 for tail ing impoundmen t
construction;
En vi ronmental Protect ion Agency's (EPA) National
Pollutant Discharge El imination System ( NPDES)
Permit for tile discharge of waste water ;
Perrrntt,ng. Economic Value an d Mining 1n t he United States
Kirkmyer Deel.
Tl MELINE - KENSINGTON MINE

1987 Property acquired for $20 million and JV
formed.
1990 First permits sought.

1991 EIS co.m pleted and favorable RoD by USFS.
Appeals lodged.
1992 EI S approved and "Major Mine" permit issued.

Appeals lodged.
1993 Engineering opt1m1zat1on and drilling occurred.

Company expected all permits by 1994.
1994 EPA issued positive Technical Assistance Report
in November.
1995 Coeur bought Echo Bay's 50 percent for $32.5

million and a scaled net returns royalty.
1996-2000 Low gold price led to write-downs totaling $128

million in 1998 and 2001.
2003 Mine plan optimized and Supplemental EIS
sought.
2004 USFS approved Supplemental EIS, which was

appealed.
2005 $ 50.2 million spent but legal challenges persist.

USFS rejected appeal by environmental group.
EPA gave National Pollution Discharge
Eliminat ion System Permit.
USACOE gave 404 Wetlands Permit.
Permits received from Alaska Coastal
Management and Department of Governmental
Coo rd i nation.
Two environmental groups filed a fresh appeal,
wh ich was rejected. This concluded the
admin istrative appeal process.
2006 $2.2 mi ll ion drilling program identified

significant additional resource potential.
2007 Spend ing reached $270 million, with a further

$50 million needed.
Despite legal appeals, new EIS Permit upheld by
USFS.
Permits for construction obtained, but
production delayed by litigation over tailings
permit.
Construct ion continued on act1vit1es not
impacted by the legal challenge.
2008 Legal challenges continued to delay construction

work.
2009 U.S. Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals

dec1s1on inva lidating permit.
USACOE re-activated 404 Permit, clearing the
way (or ta il ings construction.
2010 Began processing ore, with commercral

produc! ion 111 July 2010.
Ex.13,pg.9
0
continued
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) Large Mine

Permit: and
Numerous minor permits for construction and
operations.
The USFS did not approve the PoO until mid-1992, and
even then, an "administrative" appeal was immediately
filed. This alleged that the EIS did not satisfy the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) due to inadequacy of the baseline data used to
analyze the environmental impact and failure to
adequately consider alternative methods of mining and
waste disposal. The USFS rejected the appeal.
In September 1992, parties opposed to the project
requested the USFS to withdraw its approval on the
grounds that the plan was not complete at the time of
approval. In November 1992, these grounds were also
rejected by the USFS. In the same month, the CBJ
approved the Large Mine Permit, but in April 1993,
a group filed a state appeal against this approval.
In July 1995, in response to concerns expressed by the
environmental community, the company decided to make
limited changes to the project. This triggered the need for
a supplemental EIS and the amendment of key permits.
The key changes involved relocating the effluent discharge
point from Lynn Canal to Sherman Creek to a point
adjacent to the tailings impoundment and construction of
a water treatment plant.
In September 1995, Coeur entered into an agreement
with the EPA and the Alaska Department of Environmenta l
Conservation for a permitting process timeline. Coeur
expected to receive draft permits by May 1996 and the
final permits two months later.
In February 1996, Coeur entered into an agreement
with a coalition of environmental groups that eliminated
a potential legal challenge by the groups to the Kensington
project, and encouraged them to drop a mooted Supreme
Court appeal. Under the agreement, Coeur provided
additional environmental input while maintaining its
permitting schedule.
The low gold price in the late 1990s led to write-downs
totaling $128 million in 1998 and 2001. This resulted in
the re-design of the mine plans, and so a Supplemental EIS
was required. In late 2004. the USFS approved the
Supplemental EIS, and an appeal was denied. Coeur
expected to receive the remaining perm its by mid-2005.
with commercial production in 2006.
Permitting, Econo1nic Value and Mining in the Un ted States
Kirkmyer Deel.
Further delays resulted in the company disclosing, in

2009, that lit1gat1on had contributed to an increase in
capital costs. and that a write-down could be necessary
should the expectation of the long-term price for gold fall
below $750 per ounce (as of end-February 2009 the gold
price was $937).
Mine production finally commenced in mid-2010.
3.3 SCENARIO 3 - ADDITIONAL RISK

In this simulation, it is assumed that the perceived risk of the
Enterprise venture has increased because of lack of clarity on
when permitting may be completed. This raises the discount
rate that investors would use to assess the likely current
value of their investment. The timing of the production and
the capital and operating costs of the mine are left
unchanged from those envisaged by the Feasibility Study.
SIMULATED ADDITIONAL RISK
Due to delays in obtaining permits, it 1s seen as appropriate
by the investors to lift the discount rate from 8 to 10
percent. This reflects investor uncertainty in the long-term
viability of the project. The total capital costs remain
unchanged at $370 mllion , as does the timing of this
expenditure and the resultant cash flow from the mine.
This raised risk profile can be appreciated by looking at the
proposed Twin Metals Minnesota underground copper-nickel
mine project in northeast Minnesota, which is at a very early
stage of development. Though the proposed project enjoys
substantial local community and state elected official
support, the project is also facing resistance from
environmental organizations, even though the company has
as yet to apply for any of its major permits.
CASE STUDY: TWIN METALS POLY-METALLIC MINE MINNESOTA
Location:
18 km northeast Babbitt, Minnesota
Current owner:
An1o1agasta Pie. (100 percent)
Discovery:
1996
Planned production:
Pre-feas1b11i1y stage
Actual production:
Await111g feasibili1y sludy and permi1ting
Source SN L Metals & Mining
The Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) project is, of this date,
at a pre-feas1b11ity stage and is developing its Mine Plan of

Operations (MPO). Tl1e property is wholly owned by
Antofagasta Pie .. which completed its acquisition of Duluth
Ex.13,pg.10
D
D
continued
II
II
D
D
Metals Ltd. in January 2015. The proposed undergro und

mine is expected to extract copper, nickel, platinum,
pa lladium, gold and si lver. The current life of mine is
expected to be 30 years, however, as more detailed studies
take shape, t he mine may well continue for a longer period.
Of the case studies highlighted in this report, TM M is at
the earliest stages of the mineral development process.
Having completed a prefeasibility study in mid-2014,
the company is now in the process of rev iewing and
optimizing the prel iminary mine plan, which will be followed
by the development of an MPO for submission to the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. Once the MPO
development is submitted, it will automatically start the EIS
proc ess. Major permits will be awarded on the bas1s of the

findings of the EIS.
The project will be subject to NEPA at t he federa l level
and the Mi nnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) at the
state level, with a number of federa l and state agenc ies as
well as tribal counc ils and local governments feeding into
the review and consultation process. The TMM team has
been conducting environmental studies and assessments of
key environmental issues over the past f ive years and
continues to gather and analyze data that will feed into the
EIS preparation.
The EIS review process and RoD are expected to take
years, with the company's latest pre-feasibility study noting:
" ... environmental review and permitting [processes],
Mining-specific Permits
~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~
Permit to mine
State
Department of Natural Resources
Federal Mine Plan Operations
federal
Bureau of Land Management (with US Forest Service input)
State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Federal
Environment Protect ion Agency
Federal
Environment Protection Agency
Environmenta I Permits
Natrona/ Pollutant Discharge flimination System/State Disposal System
for process water and storm water discharges
D
II
II
Injection of underground fluid

Discharge of dredged and fill materials/wetlands conservation
Federal
US Army Corps Engineers/fnvironment Protection Agency
State
Water appropriation
State
Public waters work permit
State
Department ol Natural Resources
Dam safety
Slate
State
Federal
US ForesI Service/Environment Protection Agency
Air emissions control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/solid waste storage
State
Federal
Environment Protection Agency
HV transmission line
Stale
Minnesota Public Utilities Comm1ss1on
Gas pipeline
Stale
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Special use and road use permits
Federal
US Fores I Service
Local Permits
Conditional use
County
Building
County
Source: Twin Metals Minnesota, Technical Report on Pre-Feasibility Study, October 2014
Permitting, Economic Value and Mining in the United States
Kirkmyer Deel.
www.SN Lrnetals.com I 18
Ex.13,pg.11
D
D
D
continued
including the development and issuance of an EIS is likely to

take several years, and the final decisions regarding the EIS
program and permits are subject to appeal. This could cau se
significant delays to the commencement of the project."
Concurrently to the EIS process. as necessitated by NEPA
and MEPA, TM M also plans to file application s for a variety
of other federal and state permits (see Table 5 for a list of
key permits).
D
D
Wh ile, in terms of t ime management and project

resources, it is pr udent to initiate other permitting
processes, the impact the EIS and its find ings have on the
overall project timelines can be disadvantageous. The EIS
process may take longer than projected by the m in ing
company due to the need for more information from the
company by federal agencies, time for stakeholder
consu ltation and comment s. the length of the review
process and the need to respond to appeals filed against the
find ings of the EIS.
Furthermore, the f indings themselves can require changes

t o the mine design , which in turn may require new permits
to be issued.
As the company proceeds to develop its technica l
and feasibility stud ies, includrng information for the EIS,
the prefeasibility study outlines estimated expenditures
of $57-7 4 million over the next few years.
The environmental cost component is estimated to be the

largest within these costs:
$35-40 million
Environmental studies:
Drilling:
$11-16 mill ion
Engineering:
$6-8 million
On-going pilot plant program:
$ 5-10 mi llion
So what economic impact does a long, complex,

unpredictable permitting process have for a "young"
project like Twin Metals?
By the end of 2014, Duluth Metals Ltd. (co-owners
of the project pre-2015) had invested more than $250
million i n the project, with its j oint venture partner.
Estimates in the prefeasibility study indicate the
preliminary mine plan would require another $2.77 bil lion
to be spent in developing and const ructing the mine prior
to mining operations. Over its projected 30-year mine life,
the preliminary mine plan is estimated to require a total
capital expenditure of $5. 4 1 b1lhon.
Estimates for the preliminary mine plan include 12 million
labor hours during a three-year construction period and 850
full -time jobs when the mine is in operation. In addition . an
estimated 1,700 to 1,900 indirect jobs for the region's
economy are expected t o be created.
FIGURE 7 TWIN METALS AND STAGES OF THE PERMIITING PROCESS
M D R
....
..._
.....
~;.J
Source: TMM Project, cu1T1pany pre5e>"l tiltion, February 3, ?.015
Perm1tting. Economic va1,1e and Mining in the United States
Kirkmyer Deel.
www.S NLmetals.com 119
Ex.13,pg.12
D
D
continued
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Given t he early development stage of the TMM, the

possible costs, incurred solely due to permitting delays,
cannot be quantified. The company acknowledges
environmental risks and permitting as business risks that
are normal to the i ndustry. It also acknowledges that there
are no assurances that all permits and approvals required to
proceed to construction and production will be obtained on
reasonable terms and/or on a timely basis.
In speaking to the environmental legislation evolving in
the U.S., the company expects stricter standards and
enforcements to become more common, with increased
fines and penalties for non-compliance, more stringent
environmental assessments of proposed projects and a
heightened degree of respon sibility for the company.
In addition to TMM, Antofagasta Pie. has a number
of other projects at various stages of development in
Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Portugal. As a public
listed entity, the shareholder value for the company is
important. The company, if faced with unmanageable
delays to the Twin Metals project, may be required by its
shareholders to prioritize other, less risky projects, where
progress to construction and production is more likely to
occur in a t imely manner.
TIMELINE - TWIN METALS MINNESOTA PROJECT

2000 In April, Wallbridge completed an economic
scoping study of the Nokom is deposit
(renamed ''Maturi Deposit" in 2012).
2006 In October, Duluth Metals began trading on

the Toronto Stock Exchange after
successfully completing its IPO and
concurrent private placement for gross
proceeds of C$1 l.65 million ($10.2
million), which would be used pnmanly to
fund a two-phase exploration program on its
Maturi Extension property.
2008 In January, a scoping study was completed

on the Nokomis deposit (renamed "Maturi
Deposit in 201 2).
2010 Twin Metals Minnesota LLC founded as a

joint venture of Duluth Metals ltd. and
Antofagasta pie.
2011 In April, Duluth Metals reported that the

project was renamed the Twin Metals
Minnesota Project, or "TMM," and included
the Nokomis deposit (renamed "Maturi
Deposit" in 2012) and add1t1onal resources
on newly acquired adjacent properties.
A conceptual study was conducted.
2012 In late July, Twin Metals expected the capital
investment to develop and build the TM M

project to exceed $2 billion. Twin Metals
submits a Special Use Permit (SUP)
application to the USFS requesting access to
federal lands in the Superior National Forest
for the hydrogeology study.
o.
2013 USFS starts preparing an environmental

assessment under policies in the NEPA to
review the SUP application. In October,
USFS invites interested parties to provide
comments to be submitted within one
month.
2014 Prefeasibility study completed 1n June 2014.

2015 Antofagasta acquires Duluth and TMM.
Permitti ng, conom1c Value and Mining 1n the United States
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.13,pg.13
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~)'hi
b,+
\l..\
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. GOVEl!NOR
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
M ~ C,d,,:{r,rm;a/.s, lfllh"~ LtwU/4,
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
801 !:STREET MS 24-01
SACRA.~w..i;~~~ll,l,f
PKONE 916/ 322-1080 fAX 916 J 445-0732 TDD 911~!!~~DbEI
April 24, 2013
Mr. James Kenna, State Director

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W
J'PS
ss
coo
Dear Mr. Kenna:
..
:'il
,~
-c
~
er
N(Xl
In light of our discussions of the proposed Soledad Canyon aggregate mine, Rhought
it Important to formally transmit to you our latest report, Aggregate Sustsinabilify in';
California (2012), Map Sheet 52. As we sum~arize below, this report shows the -1
critical role this project could play in supplying ne~ed high-quality aggregate to a
region with intensive and growing demand. Our State Geologist, Dr. John Parrish,
has brought to my attention their analysis indicating that aggregate resources in this
subregion will be exhausted within the decade, assuming current development
trends. In my professional opinion, as Director of the Department of Conservation,
further development of the Soledad Canyon project meets the Department's test of
"public interest," where that test balances the mine reclamation and mineral
conservation purposes of California's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA,
Public Resources Code 2710 et seq.).
In order to support the professional opinions offered, let me summarize several key
features of the project and the surrounding area below:
The locality generally referred to as Soledad Canyon contains the mineral designated
area Sector B2, within which exists the CEMEX proposed mine site on lands whose
mineral rights are controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
As authorized in California's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA, Public
Resources Code 2710 et seq.), the State Geologist may classify, and the State
Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) may designate upon recommendation of the
State Geologist, mineral resource lands that have local, regional, or statewide
economic importance.
The D(!p_qrtment of Conservation's mission is to balance today's needs 1111th tomorrow's challenges andfoster intelligent, sustainable,
K1rkmyer Deel. and efficient use ofCa/ifi1rnia's enel'gy, land, and mineral resources.
Ex. 14, pg. 1
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
Mr. James Kenna

April 24, 2013
Page2
In 1984, the area known collectively as the Saugus-Newhall and Palmdale Regions
was mlneral classified by the State Geologist, and in 1986 specific areas (Sectors)
within the classified lands were designated by the SMGB as containing regionally
significant economic mineral resources (California Code of Regulations 3550.9).
Soledad Canyon and Sector 82 lie within this mlneral designation area.
The principal geologic unit of the resource is the Mint Canyon Formation, which has
an exposed thickness of approximately 6,000 feet along Soledad Canyon. It Is the
southern part of the Mint Canyon Formation that has been classified as MRZ-2
(economic deposit) for the hig~est grade of aggregates, Portland Cement Concrete
(PCC}. ?CC-grade aggregate is used where the strongest grade of construction
material is required. Designated Sectors 81, 82, and B3 together contain about
1,600 million tons of PCC resource materials; Sector 82 contains about 451 million
tons, and the CEMEX proposed mine area within Sector B2 contains about two-thirds
of this latter amount.
In order to determine the 50-year Aggregate Availability for Californla, the State
Geologist has divided the State into 31 Production-Consumption Regions (P-C} In
which POC-grade aggregate production is matched to the area in which most of it is
consumed. Sector 82, the Soledad Canyon area, lies within the San Fernando
Valley/Saugus-Newhall P-C Region.
This P-C Region has seen a continUOIJS decline in the PCC-grade aggregate
available for consumption, such that now the region has less than 10 years of
permitted (i.e., authorized to mirie) aggregate supply remaining (see enclosed
Aggregate Sustainability in California, 2012, Map Sheet 52).
Specifically, this P-C Region has a 50-year projected demand of 476 million tons of
PCC-grade material; however, there are only 77 million tons of material currently
permitted for mining within the Region (i.e., about 16 percent of the anticipated need).
This also represents a decllr1e in available permitted mineral reserves of about
13 percent since 2006, when 88 million tons of PCC-grade material were available
for mining. Coritinued population growth in the P-C projected Region also drives an
Increase In projected regional demand. Today, the 50-year demand is 476 million
tons of material, whereas in 2006 the 50-year projected demand was 457 million
tons-an increase of 4 percent in projected demand in five years.
As can be seen from the resource analysis, Sector 82 could fulfill nearly all of the
projected 50-year consumption demand (476 million tons of demand, and 451 million
tons of mineral resource).
Aggregate is a low unit-value, high bulk-volume commodity that must be hauled by
roadway between the mine site and points of consumption. It therefore is most
economically and environmentally advantageous to have the aggregate resource as
close to the points of consumption as possible.
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex 14
2
.
' pg.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Mr. James Kenna

April 24, 2013
Page3
There is an additional, important environmental consideration, which only recently we

have begun to include in our aggregate availability analyses and formal reports. The
greenhouse gases associated with transportation of a high-volume, low-unit-value
resource such as aggregate are of increasing importance to the State of California.
Both the cost of transportation, as well as the associated emissions, should be
considered by the local permitting authorities, and should be Included in their
determination of the public benefit!=i and impacts of the project.
Presently, the most abundant source of permitted construction aggregate materials
for the San Fernando Valley/Saugus-Newhall area is in Palmdale, about 42 miles
from the San Fernando Valley. In economic and environmental terms, that means a
25-ton haul truck would consume about 11 gallons of diesel fuel to make an 84-mile
round trip, and would release about 242 _pounds of CO2 Into the atmosphere.
If the aggregate source were at Soledad Canyon, the round trip to the San Fernando
Valley would be about 20 miles, consuming about 2.6 gallons of diesel fuel and
producing about 57 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere. This represents_reductions of
8.4 gallons of fuel per trip and 185 pounds of CO2 into the air (overall, a 76 percent
reduction). Considering there could be several hundred truckloads per day, the
economic and environmental savings would be significant.
Given the factors identified above and assuming compliance with the reclamation
planning and financial assurance requirements also contained in SMARA, the
Soledad Canyon project meets the Department's expectations of "public interest/'
and has many economic and environmental advantages over other options that have
been explored in the region. Should you need further technical assistance, please
contact me, or John Parrish at (916) 445-1825.
Sincerely,
~~
Director
Enclosure
cc: John Parrish
Kirkmyer Deel.
Ex.14, pg.3

Cemex Petition For Stay - Exhibits 10 and 12 Redacted - Text Enhanced

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cemex Petition For Stay - Exhibits 10 and 12 Redacted - Text Enhanced

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

D

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Appeal of California Stale Director's

Bureau of Land Management,

CEMEX, INC. 'S PETITION FOR STAY

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND ...............................................................5

Execution of Contracts and Approval of Mining Plan

Ser,,., Inc., IBLA No. 2013-207, Order (Dec. t 7, 2013) (same).

BLM and CEMEX Work To Defend Project From Third-Party Challenges

BLM's 2015 Communications and Decision

The Minerals Materials Act

The Decision variously uses the terms "rescinding," "withdrawing," "terminating,"

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act

43 C.F.R. 4.2l(b)(l)(i)-(iv) (2014). In applying this four-factor test,

CEMEX Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Appeal

letter whether the agency's February 15 letter was

Absent a Stay, CEMEX Will Suffer Immediate and Irreparable Harm

extensive permitting processes, CEMEX is now positioned to realize development and

The Relative Harm to the Parties Favors a Stay

The Public Interest Weighs in Favor of a Stay

professional opinion of the Director of the California Department of Conservation, "further

pending final resolution o f this appeal.

V!J ; .(U 11\,\.

HOLLAND & HAR'!'

Thomas L. San:1onelli, P.C.

P.O. Box 8749

(303) 295-8000 Phone

HOLI.IIND & HART LLP

(208) 342-5000 Phone

(208) 343-8869 Facsimile

(202) 955-8500 Phone

Two f;'.mbarcadero Ccnler, :5th Floor

_r, Shc1J1.it;Q:i:.{\1\1B [\'I .com

Regional Solicitor, Pacific Southwest Region

Thomas L. Sansonetti, P.C.

.._ ... _...~.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management,

DECLARATION OF G. CUFF KJRKMYER

I, G. CliffKirkmyer, declare as foHows:

I am currently employed by CEMEX, Inc. ("CEMEX") as the Executive Vice President,

failing to fulfill any obligation under the contracts.

to respond to, explain, or cure the alleged failures.

transporting these types of materials makes it economically infeasible to haul them

"Z; of September 2015, at .y?q_!,.-'"I ~u{,

PALM SPRINGS-SOUTH COAST

Wltnc:,ic:tli, Thal the panics hereto mutually ~ e as follows:

lollowing-desaibcd lands sicuace_d in ~c County or Los Ancclcs, State oC California.

Sc:ciion 9: SE 1/4 NE 1/4. NE 1/4 SW 1/4. Sl/1. SW 1/4, SE 1/4

Section 12: NW 1/'4 NJ? 1/'4

Section 16: NW i/4 NE 1/'4, N 1/2 NW l/4

O)q~aining; 640.16 acres more or fess.

Sand and Gravel

TI,c CCJolract mc:isurc will be b.ucd ori .a truck Joadc:d ton

finuhcd product (;it sc.:alc).

Refunds or credits will be m~de to the rurchascr as permitted by chc regulations

and reserved items The rights

the report month.

------- - ------- ----------------------

(lndMdua( oc firm ft'1me)

Angeles ; ca11(orn1a 90032

Stace of Calirorn,a, Region.al Waler QuAlhy

Palm Sprin~~b C-oatt Resoutcc Area