Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout038-250-0251 Attachment 8 ± e • • •BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 . 2 3 March 13, 2008 4 5 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ' 7 II. PRESENT: Commissioners Marin, Leland, Lambert, Nelson 8 and Chair Wilson 9. 19 ABSENT: None 11 - 12 ALSO PRESENT: 13 County Counsel Felix Wannenmache;Deputy County Counsel 14 Development Services Tim Snellings, Director 15 Pete Calarco, Assistant Director 16 Charles Thistlethwaitq Division Manager Stacey Jolliffe, Principal Planner 16 18 Steve Troester, Senior Planner 19 Carl Durling, Associate Planner 20 Chris Thomas, Associate Planner I Chris Tolley, Associate Planner 02 Tina Bonham, Commission Clerk 23 Environmental Health Doug Fogel, Program Manager 24 Public Works Eric Schroth, Civil Engineer, Associate 25 26 III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Commission members and staff may request additions, 27 deletions, or changes in the Agenda order. 28 29 It was moved by CommissionerNelson and seconded by CommissionerLambert to accept the agenda 30 as presented.' 3.1 32 IV. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA 33 (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. State Law prohibits the Planning Commissionfrom.taldng action on 34 any item presented it is not listed on the Agenda): 35 36 None 37non- 38 . 3 8 V. CONSENT AGENDA Consent items are set for approval in one motion. These items are considered non- 39 controversial. No presentations will be made unless the item is pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion Any 40 person may pull an item from the consent agenda. 41 42 A. MEXT08-0001— staff recommended a continuance to March 27, 2008 43 44 Name: Robert Walsh (SLMC) Project: Map Extension for -Diamond Oaks 045 Subdivision 05-07, Time Extension MEXT08-0001 46 Planner: Carl Durling APN: 055-300-098 Zoning: AR-1 47 Location: On the east side ofPentz Road, approximately 0.3 5 miles north ofLago Vista 48 Way, south of the Town of Paradise. 60 I Proposal: Request for a 5 year extension of an approved subdivisionmap to divide an 2 11.66 -acre parcel into ten (10) parcels ranging in size from 1.0 to 1.6 acres. An on - 3 site loop road, which connects .to Pentz Road at two different locations, would 4 provide access to all of the proposed parcels. Sewage disposal for future dwellings on 5 the site would be provided by individual, on-site septic systems. Domestic water 6 would be obtained from the Del Oro Water Company. The project site does not 7 contain a listed toxic site. 8 9 10 It'was moved by CommissionerLambert and seconded by CommissionerNelsonto continue consent 11 item MEXT08-0001 open to the March 27, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. 12 13 VI. . PUBLIC HEARINGS The Chair will call for staffcomments. The hearing will be opened to the public for 14 proponents, opponents, comments, and rebuttals. The hearing will be closed to the public and discussion confined 15 to the Commission. The Commission will then make a motion and vote on the item. 16 17 It is requested that public initiatedpresentations m be limitedto a maximuof 5 minutes so that all interested parties 18 will have an opportunity to address the Commission. Following your presentation, please print your name and 19 address on the speakers sheet so that the record will be accurate. 20, 21 The recommendation of County staff is indicated below. It is only a recommendation and has not yet been 22 considered bythe Planning Commission. Copies ofthe StaffReport are available at the Planning Division Offim. *4 A. MUP07-0002 —staff recommended approval 25 26 Name: Verizon Wireless Project: Tentative Subdivision Map 27 Planner: Chris Tolley APN: 038-250-025 Zoning: A-40 28 Location: The parcel is located at 2003 Nelson Road, Oroville (west of the 29 community of Nelson, at the intersection of Nelson Road and the Western Canal). 30 (Sec. 30, Township 20N, Range 2E, M.D.B & M.) 31 Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Use Permitto collocate 32 on an existing self -supported 194.2 foot tower. (197.8 foot overall height) owned by 33 American Tower Corporation. The collocation facilitieswill be centered at the 108 34 foot level. The property is zoned, -A-40 (Agricultural, forty acre minimum) and is 35 designated OFC (Orchard and Field Crops) by the Butte County General Plan 36 37 There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. 38 39 Mr. Chris Tolley gave summary of the project with a power point presentation. 40 41 Chair Wilson opened the public hearing. 42 43 Ms. Rebeka Anderson, representing Verizon Wireless, was available for questions. •44 " 45 The Commission did not have any questions regarding the project. 46 47 Chair Wilson closed the public hearing and confined comments to Commission and staff. 48 61 I It was moved by CommissionerNel son, seconded by CommissionerMarin, and carried unanimously 2 to adopt Resolution 08-12, approving MUP07-0013 and adopting the Negative Declaration for 3 Verizon Wireless 4 5 B. TSM06-0013 — staff recommended approval 6 Project: Tentative Subdivision Map 7 Name: Robert Van Zile g Planner: Steve Troester APN: 068-346-008 Zoning: AR. 9 Location: The project site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of 10 Hilldale Ave. and Mountain View Drive, approximately 3/4 mile northeast of, the 11 Oroville City limits. 12 Proposal: The tentative subdivisonmap application proposes to divide a 2.3 -acre 13 parcel into SEVEN (7) lots on a cul-de-sac off Mountain View Drive. Lot size varies 14 from 6,510 to 17,324 SF: Water would be provided by SFWP, and sewer by 15 LOAPUD. One existing house on site will be retained. i 16 17 There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. 18 19 Mr. Steve Troester gave a summary of the project with a power point presentation and told the 20 Commission there was an exception request to Condition 15. 0 1 2 CommissionerLeland asked what the status was regarding the capacity of Sewerage Commission 23 Oroville Region (SC -OR). 24 25 Mr. Doug Fogel said that the status has changed. An applicant is now required to provide a letter. 26 from SC -OR prior to recording the map since there is concern over future capacity. 27 28 Commissioner Nelson asked what the exception request was for, whether itwas curbs, gutters and 29 sidewalks or just one of the improvement requirements. He asked if there are curbs, gutters and 30 sidewalks in the area. 31 32 Mr. Schroth said the applicantis requesting an exception from building curb, gutters, and sidewalks 33 on Hildale and Mountain View. There is another tentative subdivisionjust north of this project, 34 which will have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. 35 36 Commissioner Nelson asked if the area around this project is becomingnore urban than rural. 37 38 Mr. Eric Schroth said yes. 39. 40 Chair Wilson opened the public hearing. 41. 42 Mr. Michael Evans said the exception request was under a previous design. There is alarge irrigation 43 , utility vault that is located near the northwest portion of the project. The new design would leave the 044 vault as is. He said that the applicant will withdraw the exception request if they have the assurance 45 from Public Works that the new design will be accepted. 4662 47 Mr. Schroth said that the design presented to the Commission is acceptable, 48 I Chair Wilson closed the public hearing and confined comments .to Comrosion and staff: 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 02 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4< 4( 4' Mr. Charles Thistlethwaite said there is amino r correction to Condition 24. The word sewage needs to be replaced with the word water. It was moved by CommissionerNelson, seconded by CommissionerLeland, and carried unanimously �to adopt Resolution 08-13; approving TSM06-0013 and adopting the Negative Declaration for Robert Van Zile changing Condition 24 to water instead.of sewage. D. Revised Order, to Comply, New Era Mine—staff recommended adoption of the Revised Order to Comply Name: Ronald and Betty Logan (Owners) and Floyd Leland Ogle and Frank Noland, North Continent Land & Timber, Inc. (Operators) Project: Revised Order To Comply,New-Era Mine Planner: Chris Thomas APN: ' 041-080-027 Zoning: FR -40 Location: 4095 Dry Creek Road, approximately 2.5 miles north of 'its intersection with:Messilla Valley Road Proposal: Hearing to consider the Revised Order .To -Comply in regards to the current mining operation at the New Era Mine, issued on February 11, 2008 to Ronald and Betty Logan, Owners, and Floyd Leland Ogle and Frank Noland (President and Vice President, North Continent Land &Timber, Inc.), Operators. Please see attached Transcript of Proceedings from Paulson Reporting and Litigation Services dated March 13, 2008 for this item.The transcript reports from the beginningof the hearing (starting with staff summary) through the close of the publichearing. The followingmiriutes commencewhere the transcript ends. Chair Wilson closed the public hearing and confined comments tcCommission and staff. There wasa ten-minute break CommissionerLambert asked what the differencewas between a miningpermit and a use permit and what the method was for approving a mining permit. She asked if it had to do withthe zoning of the area where the project is. Mr. Thistlethwaite said the original zoning of the project, from 1982, was the A-2 zone. The A-2 zone allowed for a wide range of uses including some industrial. The record is inconclusive as to whether a use permit was required at that time. The project did fall under Chapter 13 of the Butte County Code which required a mining permit. He said it is his understanding that during thattime•the County did not process many mining.permits: The number 81-135 does riot -mean that it was the, 135th use permit applied for in 1981, the number represents that it was the 13 5 proj ect applied for in 1981. For filing purposes the project was named UP81-135. CommissionerMarin asked when the UP designationwas put on the project since the permit is titled Mining ReclamationPermit. a • 1 Mr. Thistlethwaite said that the applicationwas giventhe project number of UP 8.1-135. He told the 2 Commissionthat staff had provided a decision tree to aid the Commissionin making determination. 3 4 CommissionerNel son asked what the differenceis between native material and concentrated material. .5 6 Mr. Thistlethwaite said that this is a key point in, whether the Commission determines that the. 7 operation complies with the conditions of their Mining Permit. The permit states the applicant can 8 move 20 cubic yards of material each day. The decisionfor the Commissionis whether it is native or 9 concentrated material. He said that concentrated material is what is taken off site to process. 10 11 Commissioner Nelson askedif the applicant needs to get a new permit. 12 ° If the' Commissionmakes the determination that the 20 cubic yards is 13 Mr. Thistlethwaite said no. ed to amend their permit and reclamation plan regarding that 14 native material, the applicant would ne 20 cubic yards is concentrated 15 condition. If the Commission makes the determination that the 16 material, then it would then have to determine if the operation complieswith the reclamation plan or 17 if there has been a substantial deviationfrom the approved reclamation plan. 18 19 CommissionerLeland said they should look at each issue and give their opinions. He said that in 20 regards to whether the use was established, he believes that it is an establisheduse. There is evidence 1 of a small mining operation within the last 5 gars. 2 23 Commissioner Marin and Commissioner Lambert agree. 24 25 Ms. Stacey Jolliffe said that one additional difference between the 20 cubic yards of native versus 26 concentrated soil is the CEQA determination. If it is determined that the permit is for native material, 27 then there would be a CEQA review on the amended permit. If the determination that the permit is 28 concentrated material, then the CEQA review would belimitedto changes to the reclamation plan. 29 This would be a significant difference between thetwo determinations. 30 31 Chair Wilson said he does not have an issue with 20 cubic yards being determined as concentrate. 32 ,.: ���� 34 He said that they have already started the documentation which can be used in an amended 35 reclamation plan. 36 37 Mr. Thistlethwaite said the question in regards to compliancewith the reclamation plan is: does the al deviation from the original reclamation plan approved in 38 current operation represent a substanti 39 1982? 40,. 41 CommissionerNelson said that his answer would be yes, there is a substantial deviation. Hewants to 42 know what amending the reclamation pla.n•will do in regards to the deviation. 43 •44 Mr. Thistlethwaite said there would need to bean a.nalysisof what the changes were and what type of 45 amendments are needed to update the reclamation plan. F A 46 47 Commissioner Lambert said that there should be a new miningpermit and reclamation plan. This ` 49 would clarify the many questions and concerns'that are not addressed in the current permit an64. 1 reclamation plan such as what constitutes 20 cubic yards of material. She said that staff had said 2 earlier that this process would not take any longer than amending thepermit and reclamation plan. 3 4 Mr. Thistlethwaite said that there is an entitlement granted by the County, and sincethe Commission 5 has said that it is an established use, it would be an amended permit and reclamation plan. 6 7 CommissionerLeland said that the Commissionhad establishedthe use and entitlement. He said he 8 feels bound by the language in the 1982 permit However, he reads it as stating 20 cubic yards of 9 disturbed soil. He asked what the definition of mining is. 10 11 Mr. Thistlethwaite said that SMARA defines mining as material moved offsite. 12 . . 13 C ommi ssionerLeland said he believes from the testimony and documentation that this was approved 14 as a small operation. -The County only required a mitigated negative declaration instead of an 15 environment impact report. He referenced the original request that was 80 cubic yards and that it was 16 not approved until the applicantlowered it to 20 cubic yards. The permit, reclamation plan and other 17 documents are inconsistent. His conclusion is that it was 20 cubic yards of displaced soil, which 18 means they have vastly deviated -from the permit . 19 20 Commissioner Marin agrees with CommissionerLeland, but also agrees with Chair Wilson that a 1 : large amount of soil has to be moved to get 20 cubic yards of product. He doesn't want to shutdown 2 the operation so that people lose jobs, but he believes Mr.Logan knew about the condition of,only 23 moving 20 cubic yards of material per day. , . 24 ked if the Planning 25 Commissioner Nelson as Commissionwere'to go with the native material and plan, would the'operation have to cut back to 20 cubic yards of 26 amend the permit and the reclamation 27 disturbed soil per day. 28 , ey would continue to operate under the 29 Mr. Thistlethwaite said that staff's fecommendationis that th 30 original permit and reclamation plan. , 31 32 CommissionerLambert asked if that was 20 cubic yards of native or concentrate materials moved per. 33 day. 34 35 Mr. Thistlethwaite said that needed to be determined by the Planning Commission. 36 37 Commissioner Leland said that as long as the applicant is making steps to getting right with the 38 County they should be allowed to continue to operate. The operators are good employers, the 39 stabilizedthe soil in emergency conditions, they fixedup the road, and he thinks they are responsible 40 operators. He said that with the increased activity the only impact he sees is the increase in traffic. 41 He does not believe that the hydrology and wildlife are impacted by an increase in the rate of 42 extraction. 43 •44- C ommissionerNelson talked about looking at the 20 cubic yards as concentrated material and that the 45 reclamation plan needs to be amended. He said the operator should be allowed to continue, but also 46 make it right with the County. 475 48 Commissioner Leland said if the Commission looks atit as concentrated materialhe operator is 1 49 compliancewith the use permit. They have the entitlementwhich matches the reclamation plan an I vethe Commissionwould be able require the operator to amend the reclamationplan 1 doesn't belie ' 2 if the Commission determines it is concentrated soil. 3 4 CommissionerLambert asked if CommissionerLeland thought the applicant is complying with the 5 conditions of approval. 6 7 CommissionerLeland said no. The applicant did not file an annual report or the frnancialassiirances 8 that are part of the conditions of the use permit. He asked if the County could require a new financial 9 assurance. 10 11 Mr. Thistlethwaite said the applicant did pay the required $3,000.00 frnancialassurance. They have 12 been cooperative in obtaining an updated estimate. At this time, they are estimating$267,000.00 as a 13 financial assurance. The law requires that the County review the financial assurances on an annual 14 basiand that the financial assurance is in place while the mining is occumng. If the operati son 15 changes significantly it can be reviewed more often. 16 17 CommissionerLeland said that it appears that the annual reporting (recognizing the operators are in . 18 the process of providing prior reports) and the financial assurances are the only two items that do not 19 comply. r 20 , urancedoes have to be based off of the reclamation plan. In 21 Mr. Thomas said that the financial ass 12 violation 2, it is staff's opinion that the operation has significantly deviated in such a way that the 3 approved reclamation plan is affected. 24 25 Commissioner Leland asked if the Commission makes th£rndings that the permit allows the larger 26 scale, how would the reclamation plan be deficient. , 27 28 Commissioner Leland asked why staff does not believe the applicant is complying with the 29 reclamation plan. 30 31 Mr. Thistlethwaite said that the County has not done annual reviews, annual inspectionsor followed 32 up on the financial assurances. Those are the reasons given to the Commissionby staff that it does 33 not meet the specific criteria in section 3502 of SMARA. 34 35 Mr. Thomas, for clarification, read section 3502d of SMARA to the Commission 36 37 Commissioner Leland went over item 3 on page 16 of the staff report that said that the current 38 operation has substantially deviated from the operation permitted by UP81-135. Because it is the. 39 same acreage and depth, his opinion iithat there has not been a substantial deviation- In regards to 40 substantial extension of the termination of the miningoperation, he said that his answer would be no if cubic yards of concentrate. He said he does not see a basis for requiring an 41 they were entitled to 20 42 amended reclamation plan. ; 43 044. Chair Wilson said that there is no suggestion in, the recommendation for dust control. 45it, 46 Ms. Jolliffesaid that since staffwas only looking at compliancewith the old permnot issuance of a 47 new permit, dust control was not recommended. 66 49 r� 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 F -r -It 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 •44 45 46 47 48 4S CommissionerNelson said it is his opinion to go with native material, allowingthe operation a time frame to become compliant while still allowing it to operate. CommissionerLeland said that would require environmental review, whichwould determine the need for a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report. It would also clarify the 20 CommissionerLambertwhat she remembers about the original use permit cubicyard issue. He asked when it came before the Planning Commission in 1982. Commissioner Lambert said it was a small mom and pop mining operation. Commissioner Nelson asked if staff needs I a motion of intent. Mr. F elix Wannenmacher sai d that.the Commissionneeds to determine wh ether violations occurred and to make findingsto support the determination. . Commissioner Leland suggested going over each violation and instructing staff with a motion of intent. He said in regards to Violation 1 he believesthere is adequate proof that more than 20 cubic yards of material is moved each day and that the permit was for a small mining operation. The other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Marin said the scale of the operation has changed. Commissioner Leland asked if the Commission should do an informaiiote on each violation. Mr. Thistlethwaite said that would be helpful for staff. _ CommissionerLeland proposed a tentative vote to find if whenthe permit says 20 cubic yards it is referring to total disturbed soil. Commissioners Marin, Lambert, Nelson greed it did. Chair Wilson did not.. Commissioner Leland asked if theCommissionagreed that the scale of operation had exceeded the permit. Commissioners Marin Lambert and Nelson agreed. Chair Wilson did not. Ms. Jolliffesaid that ifthe operation has changed the rate of extraction, that could be considered a deviation. Mr. Thomas asked if the current reclamation plan would work with today's standards. Ms. Jolliffe said the SMAR 'regulations in the 1980's would be substantially different. Commissoner Nelson said that there would be a larger impact to traffic -and water quality due to a higher rate of extraction. Ms. Jolliffesaid that rate of extraction does have environmentalimpacts on time sensitiveitems such 7 as traffic and water run off. n 1 -2 Commissioner Nelson asked County Counsel how to -make a motion of intent. 3 4 Mr. Wannenmacher explained that findings have to be made before making a motion of intent. 5 6 CommissionerNelson said he believesthere is a consensus of the Commission that an amended permit . 7 and reclamation plan is needed He was not prepared to walk through the detailed findings. 8. 9 It was moved by CommissionerNelson, seconded by Commission erLeland, and carried unanimously 10 to continue item closed until April 10, 2008. 11 12 13 VII. GENERAL BUSINESS - This section of the agenda is to be utilized by the Planning Commission and 14 Director of Development Services on items of interest, general discussion, or items for which staff has been 15 directed to do research and bring back to the Commission. Items A, B, & C may not always be addressed at every 16 hearing, but will always be listed as part of the agenda. 17 18 A. Directors' Report 19 _ . . 20 ` B. General Plan/Zoning Ordinance Update 21 C. Update of Board of Supervisors' Actions 24 D. Legislative Case Law Update 25 26 E. Planning Commission Concerns 27 28 VIII. CLOSED SESSION 29 30 IX. NUNUTES = None 31 32 X. COMMUNICATIONS - Communications.received and referred. ''(Copies of all communications are 33 available in the Planning Division Office.) 34 35 XI. ADJOURNMENT 36 37 Meeting was adjourned at 6:05 pm. 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chair Harrell Wilson 44 r� U 68 March 13, .2008 Transcript of Proceedings 244 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION 2 3 I, Kimberly. A. Barrette, Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter, in�and for the State of California, do hereby 5 certify,: 6 7 That the foregoing proceedings were .reported ly and later transcribed into 8 by"me stenographical 9typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing is a 10 true record of the.proceedings taken at that time. 12 13 IN. WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name: 14 April 8'.2008_ 15 16 s% 17 j ' Kimberly.A. Barrette, CSR No. 6671 '18 19 M1 20 21 G 22 23 y 24 25, , P A `U L, S O 1-4 69 916.446.2700 ' 800.300.1214 _ _ n. 2008 Transcript -• of Proceedings March 13, 1 3 ' BEFORE 7HE. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _• OROVILLE,.CALIFORNIA 2 THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008, 9:00 a.m. _ IN RE THE NATTER OF, 3 q.,,` t CHAIR WILSON: This is item D on our agenda, NEN ERA NINE ,5 which is the revised order to comply for the New Era ----------------------------- 6 Mine. 7 The Planning Commission is being asked to 8 . confirm or modify a revised order to comply pursuant to TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 9 .Butte County Code Section 13-116(b)(1) which specifies 10 the enforcement process for a mine operator which the Thursday, march 13, zoos 9:00 a.m. 11 Departments of Development Services and Public Works 12 consider to be in noncompliance with county code. 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 13 This is the order that we would like to see w 14 the events of the mine hearing to proceed with. 15 Staff will give,a presentationand then the, r ' Kimberly A. Barrette, CSR No. 6671 16 commission will have the opportunity to ask questions of , 17 the staff and then I will open the public hearing. 18 We'll have a presentation by the operators and 19 owners of the mine and commission questions of the mine 20 operators and owners and then we will have public 21 comments, which looks like I have a very nice stack, and 22 response from the mine operators and owners and then 23 after the responses we win dose the public hearing and • 24 confine all comments to commission and staff. 25 We have received a tremendous amount of 2 4, APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 1 information, a lot of which came in today which we have 1 2 2 not had a chance to took at 3 3 And we anticipate a considerable amount of 4 For New Era Mine, North Continent Land Timber, Inc.: 4 , testimony on the hearing today and 4 a particular item - 5 SCHARFF, BRADY i£ VINDING , 5 has already been covered and it would be — it would be 6 BLAIR W. WILL; ESQ. 6 considerate of you if you would not just be repeating 7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 7 things over and over again., Sacramento, California 95814 g It's not going to make any difference to the 8 (916) 485-5882 9 commission just because its repeated over and over (916) 485-5912 fax '� 9 bwill@scharff.us l0 again. 11 The commission will probably require l0 11 12 additional time for deliberation and we may select 12 THE MORAN LAW GROUP JOHN THOMAS MORAN, JR., ESQ. 13 another date to continue this. 13 309 West Washington, Suite 900 14 So at this time, we will have staff Chicago, Illinois 60606 15 presentation. 14 (312) 630-0200 16 MR. THISTLETHWAITE: Good moming,.Chair (312) 630-0203 fax 17 Wilson and commissioners. 15 j.t.m.moran@gmail.com . 16 My name is Chuck Thistlethwaite. I'm the 16 19 planning manager for the Department of Development 17 1B 20 Services and I,have with me today Chris Thomas, an 19 21 associate planner, and we will be giving the presentation 20 22 on the Revised Order to Comply that's been issued by the 21 23 Department of Public Works and the Department of 22 23 24 Development Services to the owners and operators of the 24 25 New Era Mine on February 11 of this year. 25 • 70 • March Transcript of Proceedings 13, 2008. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 2 5 Today your commission is being asked to confirm, modify or, if you choose, reject a Revised Order to Comply that's been issued pursuant to Butte County Code section 13-116(b)(1). And this order draft order specifies the enforcement process for a mine operator which the Departments of Development Services and Public Works consider to be in noncompliance with the relevant sections of Butte County code. And the Revised Order does contain six specific required actions which I'm going to briefly outline here. The draft order that had been issued on February 11 requires the applicant to sign an approved statement of responsibility form and return it to the Department of Development Services. To submit and maintain interim financial assurances in a form and amount approved by Butte County and the California Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation. To select consultants and licensed professionals experienced in the preparation of a mining permit and reclamation plan. To submit complete applications to the . 5 Department of Development Services for a use permit 6 1 mining permit and reclamation plan to amend UP 81-135 2 together with the required application fees. 3 Number five, for the owner and operator to take all appropriate actions necessary to obtain the approval of the permit, reclamation plan and financial assurance. And finally, number six, that all unreimbursed costs that have been even incurred by Butte County in regards to this Revised Order be fully compensated to the county upon a determination by your Planning Commission. And Chris Thomas will discuss each of the violations noted and each of the six issues or each of the six provisions of the Revised Order to Comply in detail. Our recommendation today is that you hold the required public hearing regarding the alleged violations and affirm these six required actions in the Revised Order to Comply by making findings and determinations'm the forth of a resolution. While the staff report included a number of preliminary findings, the resolution has not yet been written in terms of a final decision with regards to the Revised Order to Comply, and that's because of the breadth of the issues and the amount of information involved in this matter. 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3, 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 In addition, we expect as was indicated earlier that we will get an extensive amount of public testimony and input into this issue as well. Staff intends to prepare' a resolution K that's the direction of your commission based upon your commission's input. In this presentation today staff will also - highlight some of the relevant questions that are before the commission during our remarks. I do have prepared, and I hope this is of some assistance, a flowchart, as it were, which 1 believe you have a copy of. And these are some of the questions that obviously I'm not going to be able to anticipate all the issues that are brought up today, but these are some of the key questions that we anticipate will be addressed by the testimony and. discussions of staff to your commission and its in the form of a decision tree. One of the issues that you may hear tesfimony about today is, is the New Era Mine essentially an established and valid use. The Department of Development Services has not made any determinations or taken any position that this is in any way not an established or ongoing use. You may hear testimony from other parties with 8 1 regards to that. 2 From the position of staff, really, the second 3 area in the flowchart determination of a condition of 4 approval that allows for 20 cubic yards of material to be 5 mined per day is key really to some of the information 6 ' that you're going to hear today. 7 That's one of the conditions of approval from 8 the original use permit back in 1981. 9 And I think you'll hear testimony today as to 10 whether that condition of approval related to the 11 extraction of a concentrated ore for off site processing, 12 and you may also hear information that that condition may I13 have been intended to apply to the extraction of — the 14 total amount of extraction of native material from the 15 site. 16 Ano extraaron arsrui u+a­ - 17 site, questions about whether or not that has been in 18 excess of what has been permitted by UP 81-135. 19 The next question that you may come to is is 20 the operation currently in compliance with the previously 21 approved reclamation plan that was approved by the 22 Planning Commission back in 1982. , 23 And depending on your determinations on each 24 of these issues there's a course of action that would d to be taken to comply with 25 lead to either actions nee 71 • • March 13, 2008" Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 1 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9' the conditions of approval for the original use permit or — and/or requirements to amend that permit and the reclamation plan. And with that, I will go ahead and tum this over to — MR. WANNENMACHER: Since this is a hearing and you've already stated that you've received a number of material, it would be appropriate prior to starting the - hearing to disclose any ex -parte contacts, if you've had any. And that would be material that you've received from people other than staff, spoken to other than staff, and if you've had any independent observations of the site or the area, and that would be just to allow the people here to comment on that if they. Wished. MS. LAMBERT: I should probably do that 1 don'tthink its a major thing, but I did receive one - phone call from one resident and the conversation did not deal with the mine itself, merely the process that we do here at the Planning Commission, whether we hear from proponents and then opponents and what time it might appear on the agenda and things of that nature. Nothing in relation to for or against or anything in relation to the mine itself.. 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 1 B, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19- 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 MR. LELAND: I have had no ex -parte contacts. I have driven the area occasionally in the past, but not within the last year. CHAIR WILSON: I drove up to the mine site yesterday. 1 didn't go ahead and enter the mine site and I did have a brief conversafion with a gentleman that's sitting right over here, but it didn't pertain to anything. i MR. NELSON: I didn't have any contacts with anyone. MR. MARIN: No ex -parte contact on my part. MR. THISTLETHWAITE: Okay. With that, I would like to tum this over to Chris Thomas for his detailed presentation. MR. THOMAS: Good morning, Chair Wilson, commissioners, Chris Thomas, Development Service, associate planner, development services. Staff first became aware of the current New . Era Mine operation in late October, 2007. At present the New Era Mine encompasses approximately 12 acres of highly disturbed land immediately west and above Dry Creek some four miles northeast of Butte College. Originally permitted in May, 1982 under Use Permit 81-135, the New Era did not, for the period , between 1982 and 2007, have on file financial assurance `7 11 for reclamation or any annual production reports or annual inspection reports as required by Butte County code and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, or SMARA. Unfil October 2007 there were no records on file with either the Department of Development Services or the Department of Public Works indicating an ongoing mining operation at the New Era. If the Planning Commission determines that the current operation is consistentwith UP 81-135 and it's reclamation plan, the state Office of Mine Reclamation would require the submittal of necessary reports, inspections and financial assurance for compliance with state codes and regulations. If the Planning Commission determines that the current operation is not consistent with UP 81-135 and/or the reclamation plan, then the subsequent permit process., would address necessary reports, inspections and financial assurance. In addition to these and other violations of permit conditions, staff has found that the current operation substantially deviates from the operation originally considered and permitted in 1982. At present, the current operation is far greater in scale than the minor mining operations that 12 1 may have occurred at the New Era during the period 2 between 1982 and the summer of 2007. • 3 As you've heard,'pursuant to Butte County Code 4 Section 13-116(b)(1), a notice of violation was sent to 5 the owners and operators on December 20th, 2007, requiring 6 an amended permit, reclamation plan and valid financial 7 assurance for the current operation. 8 As staff determined that the owners and 9 operators did not respond with the three items required. 10 in the notice of violation, an Order to Comply was issued 11 on February 4, 2008. 12 In order to clarify certain matters pertaining 13 to a Cleanup and Abatement Order issued from the Regional •14 Water Quality Control Board, a subsequent Revised Order 15 to Comply was issued on February 11. . 16 A Revised Order to Comply cannot take effect 17 until the operator has been provided a hearing before the 18 Planning Commission concerning the alleged. violation. 19 The Revised Order to Comply is, thus, the 20 subject of this hearing. 21 As you've gathered from the staff report and - 22 the attachments, there's quite a lot of material to 23 cover. Our remarks should take about 30 minutes to 24 deliver and I've organized them as follows. 25 First we'll discuss the historic and recent 72 • • • f Transcript of Proceedings ' March 13,1,2008 13 15 1 New Era Mine operation and staff's actions as we became 1 1982, the record shows ongoing discussion as to whether 2 aware of the scope and scale of the operation. 2 or not and environmental impact record would be required 3 Next we'll briefly discuss the regulatory 3 for the project rather than a mitigated negative 4 context by which the Revised Order was issued and within 4 declaration. 5 which the Planning Commission may make its 5 The environmental evaluation done for the 6 determinations. 6 initial study is on pages 50 through 54 of your 7 Third, we will go over the violations and 7 attachments and lists several environmental impacts with 8 present to.the commission what we believe to be the B the original proposal for mining 80 cubic yards per day, 9 relevant questions at issue and staffs conclusions. 9 including impacts associated with erosion, runoff, 10 And, fourth, will be a brief discussion of the 10 sedimentation of Dry Creek, impacts to area springs, 11 six requirements in the Revised Order to Comply and the 11 impacts to wildlife habitat and road maintenance and 12 facts and findings to support determinations to be made .. 12 safety issues. 13 in the resolution. 13 On March 10, 1982 the Planning Commission 14 To start then with some site information and 14 voted to not require an environmental impact report 15 background about the historic and recent New Era Mine. 15 allowing the application to a move ahead on the basis of 16 The 18 acre New Era parcel owned in part by 16 a mitigated negative declaration. 17 Ronald and Betty Logan is located at 4095 Dry Creek Road 17 It appears from the record that the EIR was 18 about two and a half miles north of its intersection with is not required in large part because the manner in which 19 Messilla Valley Road. 19 the operation was to be conducted would be phased and a 20 The New Era is described as a Placer gold mine 20 hydrology study regarding impacts to local springs was to 21 and is located in a rural residential area between Lime 21be completed. Phasing is discussed by Ron Logan in a 22 and Morgan Ridges characterized by oak woodlands, 22 'January 5th, 1982, letter to planner Steven Streeter on 23 grasslands and riparian growth along the perennial Dry 23 pages 71 through 73 of your attachments. 24 Creek. 24 A phased operation, along with requirements 25 The parcel is in the winter herd migration 25 for a streambed alteration permit, waste discharge 14 16 1 area for the Bucks Mountain deer herd. 1 requirements and a hydrology study showing no impact to 2 The Logan parcel's current zoning is FR40 and 2 area springs were apparently intended to limit a variety 3 its general plan designation is agricultural residential. 3 of impacts to a less than significant level. 4 On May 22nd, 1981, Mr. Logan applied for a 4 81-135 was eventually approved on May 20th, 5 mining and reclamation permit recorded in our file as Use 5 1982, with 24 conditions, you can see those -conditions on 6 Permit 81-135 proposing to process some 80 cubic yards of 6 pages 4 through 6 of your attachments, including 7 material per day in a cut and cover operation. 7 requirements for three inspections per year by the Public 8 A cut and cover operation is one in which the 8 Works Department, a phase laimit to operations subject 9 processing of material from one excavation pit is closely 9 to Planning Commission review and submission of a 10 followed by its reclamation as the next pit is processed, 10 performance bond of $3,000 as financial assurance for 11 and so on, thereby reducing the area of disturbance. 11 reclamation. 12 UP 81-135 was denied by the Planning 12 The departments of Public Works and 13 Commission on August 26,1981. Mr. Logan appealed and on ' 13 Development Services have no paper, electronic or 14 October 27, 1981, the Board of Supervisors denied his 14 microfiche records showing that these or other 15 appeal without prejudice, instructing him to reapply to 15 requirements were fulfilled between 1982 and 2007. 16 the Planning Commission with the nomnal application fee 16 In particular, we have no record of a 17 waived. 17 . financial assurance until the current operators provided 18 The October 27 minutes show concerns regarding 18 a $3,000 certificates of deposit on January 24, 2008. 19 the adequacy of the reclamation plan and potential - 19 For the period between June 1982 and October 20 impacts of the operation to local water quality and water 20 2007, ther county has had•no such records such as annual 21 springs use for drinking water by many canyon residents. 21 production reports, inspection reports or updated cost 22 The second UP 81-135 application for use 22 estimates on file for the New Era Mine. 23 permit was received the day after denial on October 28, 23 No such records are on file with the 241981 24 Department of Conservation. Neither did the New Era Mine 25 Through the fall of 1981 and early winter of 25 have until December 20th, 2007, a Department of 73 • 7 • I a l Transcript of Proceedings March 13; 2008' 13 19 1 Conservation, California State Mine identification Number 1 At that meeting the operator submitted a plan 2 as required for all permitted surface mining operations _ 2 of operation for the New Era Mine which described a 3 since 1991. In December of 2007 staff learned that the 13 staged operation where the total disturbed surface area 4 Regional Water Quality Control Board had issued the waist 4 would be limited to one acre or less. You can see that 5 discharge requirements or WDRs to Mr. Logan after his 5 described in the first paragraph, page 310 of your 6 permit approval until they were rescinded on January ` 6 7 attachments. Staff performed an inspection of the New Era 7 25th, 1991. Those WDRs and correspondence are on pages In the October 7, y ! B Mine on December 5th, 2007, and found approximately 12 B 263 through 280 of the attachments. 1992 letter to Ron Logan that rescinds his waste 9 acres of benched and graded land up the western slope , 9 10 discharge requirements, James Pedri of the Water Quality 10 from Dry Creek roughly 1,300 by 400 feet in area with an 11 Control Board states that the New Era Mine, quote, 11 estimated 100,000 cubic yards of soil displaced, five 12 "extracts placer deposits from a streambed, then 12 process water ponds and processing machinery. 13 hydraulically processes the ore for gold recovery. The 13 At that December 5th inspection, the operator . 14 limited partnership was dissolved in 1990 and no mining 14 submitted a cost estimate of $24,801 for reclamation of 15 has taken place since then. There are no current plans 15 the current New Era Mine operation. 16 to resume mining," dose quote. 16 The county's mining consultant later found 17 The operators have stated that while that 17 this amount to be inadequate, given the current 18 limited partnership dissolved, mining operations at the F 1 B operation. - 19 New Era were ongoing after 1992 19 Phil Woodward with the California Regional 20 Moving forward to the current operation. In 20 Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region 21 late winter 2007, Ron Logan came in to the ask about his 21 accompanied staff on the December 5th inspection and 22 pernit status and was told that it appeared 81-135 had 1 22 noted severe deficiencies in the New.Era's site stability 23 lapped as we had no records of operation for the New Era 23 in the face of coming winter rains. He advised the 24 operators to immediately engage an engineer to address 24 25 Mine. Mr. Logan disagreed. Staff asked him to 25 site stability issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 submit evidence that his mine had been operating over the past 25 years. At that time, he did not submit such evidence. ` In late May 2007 as a result of two residents ' coming in to ask about activity on the Logan property staff asked Department of Fish and Game warden Josh Brennan to visit the site. Warden Brennan reported back on June 5th, 2007 that there was a small operation well outside the creek and one of the better run operations he'd seen. Over the summer of 2007 staff received a couple more calls and visits about activity on the Logan r ' property and on October 24 code enforcement visited the site and reported bade about an extensive surface mining operation. We first spoke with Lee Ogle, president of North Continent Land and Timber shortly thereafter and informed him that it appeared that UP 61-135 had lapsed and that they had to submit a new mining permit application. t Mr. Ogle disagreed and asserted that the permit was valid. Staff met with, Lee Ogle and Frank Noland on October 30th, 2007, and instructed the operators to submit any evidence of ongoing operations at the New Era. ME 1 . The next day the operators hired the 2 engineering fine of Holdrege and Kull and commence site 3 stability work shortly thereafter. 4 On December 17, 2007 the Water Quality Control 5 Board issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order requiring a ` 6 plan to address site stability issues. 7 During December and January, staff asked the 8 operators to submit such evidence as employee pay stubs, 9 bank statements, equipment rental invoices and tax 10 statements reflecting an ongoing mining operation. 11 In January the operator submitted a 12 substantial amount of various materials such as 13 affidavits, photographs, some assays and receipts 14 collected in binders for each year between 1981 and 2007. 15 This material is available for your you to inspect. 16 A definitive summary of all the affidavits is 1`1 not provided. We can say that they come from diverse 18 individuals who stated they visited, worked at or did 19 work on equipment for the New Era Mine or witnessed 20 mining activity at the'New Era Mine for parts of or for 21 the whole period between 19B2 and the present 22 You can see a selection of those affidavits on 23' pages 242 through 262 of your attachments. 24 At this time taken as a whole the materials 25 appear to indicate sporadic and frequently minor mining 74 • • Transcript of Proceedings March 13,2008 21 23 1 activity at the New Era for the 25 years prior to the 1 plan and financial assurance that accurately account for 2 current operation. ' 2 a given surface mining operation. 3 On January 16, 2008 the operator submitted an 3 Chapter 13 sections relevant to the current 4 affidavit from Ron and Betty Logan asserting that the - 4 New Era operation include requirements for adequate 5 county had agreed to have a lien placed on the Logan 5 financial assurances, a definition as to when a mine is 6 property as financial assurance on June 12, 1982. 6 idle and an interim management plan is required. 7 Those affidavits are on page 220 and 221 of 7 Requirements for annual inspections and annual 8 your attachments. 8 production reports. 9 The operators have not to date provided a copy 9 Substantial deviations in requirements for 10 of the lien and staff has been able to locate any 10 amendments to approved reclamation plans. 11 evidence of the lien or actual discussion in the record 11 Various enforcement provisions. 12 that one was to be put in place for the New Era Mine. 12 These enforcement provisions include 13 Given the scale of the current operation and 13 administrative penalties of up to $5,0D0 per day from the 14 questions about the active status of the mine, the lads 14 original date of noncompliance for any operator who 15 of required inspection or production reports, financial 15 violates or fails to comply with an order. 16 assurances and several concerns with permit compliance, a 16 Administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per 17 notice of violation was sent to the operators on December 17 day from the date of noncompliance for operators who fail 18 20th, 2007. 18 to submit annual inspection or production reports, and in 19 The notice required that the operator show the 19 Section 13-116(b)(8) provision for any and all other 20 current New Era Mine have a valid permit, reclamation 20 remedies, civil or criminal, including but not limited to 21 plan and financial assurance. 21 use permit, mining permit, and/or reclamation plan 22 While staff reserved judgment on the question 22 revocation proceedings. 23 of continuous operations, we did find that the current 23 Finally per condition two of use permit 24 operation continued to be in violation of several 24 81-135, the Planning Commission may also suspend, revoke, 25 sections of Butte County code and the state public 25 or modify the permit where continuation of violations may 22 24 1 resources code in addition to several specific UP 81-135 1 adversely affect the public. 2 conditions. 2 As you may have read in the staff report in 3 An Order to Comply was sent to the operators 3 the attachments, the operators have argued UP 81-135 is 4 and owners on February 4th, 2008. 4 strictly an entitlement for a mining permit and 5 A Revised Order to Comply was then 5 reclamation plan and not a use permit 6 subsequently issued on February 11; 2008 in order to 6. Staff at this time would simply like to point 7 clarify that the county's order did not conflict with the 7 out that while enforcement provisions for permits in' 8 operator's requirement to comply with the Cleanup and B Chapters 13 and 24 do differ somewhat. Section 13-116(b) 9 Abatement Order. 9 in condition 2 of the permit do allow the Planning 10 As an order issued under 13-116(b)(1) does not 10 Commission to suspend, modify and revoke 81-135 in 11 take effect until the Planning Commission makes its 11 addition to assessing administrative penalties. 12 determination, the Revised Order allows the operators to 12 Move to the violations now. After discussing 13 continue mining operations consistent with all the 13 each violation, the staff is going to note what we 14 conditions of UP 81-135. 14 believe to be the questions in issue in regards to the 15 During the month of February, 2008 the New Era 15 violation and our conclusion. 16 site was extensively expanded from what staff had 16 The first violation is in regards to condition 17 witnessed in December. Extensive site stabilization was 17 21 of UP 81-135 which states, quote, "Mining operation to 18 also completed. This picture was taken on a February 15 18 be limited to a maximum of 20 cubic yards per day with 19 site visit. 19 subsequent review by the Planning Commission for proposed 20 Move to the regulatory context now. As you 20 expansion to Phase 2," dose quote. 21 know, Butte County Code Chapter 13, Article 2 in effect 21 As noted there's no record of any such 22 since August 10, 1993, largely derives from the.state 22 Planning Commission review. 23 Surface Mining and Reclamation Act or SMARA. 23 As detailed in the staff report on pages 12 24 At the heart of SMARA and our Chapter 13 24 through 15 during the year UP B1-135 application was 25 mining code are requirements for a permit, reclamation 125 under consideration, the concept of phasing operations at 75 • Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 considered by the Planning Commission," close quote. The intent of the Planning Commission to review the New Era Mine operation at the end of Phase 1 is also stated on the day the permit was approved. The May 20th, 1982 Planning Commission minutes stated, quote, 'The hearing was dosed. It was agreed that the commission would review the operation at the end of Phase 1. Commissioner Max then made a motion seconded by Commissioner Schrader to adopt and certify," dose quote. The record shows that a phased approach of 20 to 40 to 80 cubic yards per day was to be incorporated into the New Era operation with expansion allowed per successful review of the Planning Commission. Again, there's no such record of such a review. What is less dear is whether the Phase 1 limit referred to a volume, an area or both., Phasing is referenced as an area in the three phases exhibit seen on page 20 in your attachments. The operators have argued that the 20 cubic yards per day limit represents a concentrate derived from some larger excavated volume. In an affidavit signed by Ronald Logan he states that he has, quote, "Never exceeded the 20 cubic yards of concentrated material for my 18 acre parcel," 27 close quote. Staff would like to point out that the UP 81-135 record does not mention the 20 cubic yards as a concentrate. The language in the record referencing 20 cubic yards per day appears to support the definition of the 20 cubic yard per day total as native material, a total volume. For example, the April 8th, 1982 Planning Commission minutes state, quote, "Ron Logan pointing to a map indicating that hydrology of the area is such that downstream springs would not be affected by the project and that he felt that the proposed $10,D00 bond requested was entirely unreasonable for the little hole that his proposed 20 cubic yards per day operation would make," dose quote. The relatively minor disturbance associated with the total volume of 20 cubic yards per day is also ackriowledged by Mr. Logan at the May 20th, 1982 approval hearing in the context of a discussion regarding the amount and type of financial assurance to be required. Quote, "Ron Logan took exception to the amount of the performance bond stating that they, had no place to store the overburden and had to put it back as they went along and that the contractors had estimated that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 entire 20 cubic yards per day could be replaced for $500 to $1,000. He asked whether a lien could be placed on his property rather than putting up the money for the bond; close quote. Accepting the operator's assertion that 20 cubic yards per day represents an end product of some unspecified greater volume begs the question of what that greater volume is. By the operator's argument, the permit would contain no upper limit to volume subject to disturbance if it can be shown to concentrate down to 20 cubic yards per day. The first violation can be summarized by the following question. Is the 20 cubic yards referenced in UP 81-135 a concentrated or total volume. And in either scenario, has condition 21 been violated. Staff concludes on the basis of the record that 20 cubic yards per day refers to a total volume and not a concentrate and that the current operation, 12 acres of disturbed land with some 100,000 cubic yards of material moved is in violation of condition 21. The second violation noted in the Revised Order to Comply refers to a change in the mining operation that results in a substantial deviation from 76 25 1 ' the New Era Mine evolved in conjunction with discussion - 2 as to whether or not an EIR would be required. 2 3 The staff report notes many phasing related 3 4 parts to the record. - 4 5 For example, the April 8th, 1982 staff 5 6 findings include a discussion of a field trip to the New 6 7 Era site on March 12 by county staff representatives of 8 three state agencies and Mr. Logan, quote, "As a result e 9 of the field trip, Mr. Logan tentatively agreed to a 9 10 three phase plan to expand the mining operation. Phase 1 10 11 would restrict him to a maximum output of 20 cubic yards 11 12 per day, the limitation on his current permit from the 12 13 Department of Fish and Game. Phase 2 would double the 13 14 output of mine material to 40 cubic yards per day. 14 15 Finally, Phase 3 would be for 80 cubic yards per day, the 15 16 figure originally requested for the mining permit and in 16 17 the draft reclamation plan," dose quote. 17 16 The April Bth staff findings go on to discuss 18 19 the benefits of a phased operation, quote, "The phasing 19 20 would allow for a more careful reviewing of the mining 20 21 operation by state agency representatives and county 21 22 personnel. 22 23 If through periodic monitoring a reasonable 23 24 track record is established, the expansion from 20 cubic 24 25 yards per day to 40 cubic yards per day could be 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 considered by the Planning Commission," close quote. The intent of the Planning Commission to review the New Era Mine operation at the end of Phase 1 is also stated on the day the permit was approved. The May 20th, 1982 Planning Commission minutes stated, quote, 'The hearing was dosed. It was agreed that the commission would review the operation at the end of Phase 1. Commissioner Max then made a motion seconded by Commissioner Schrader to adopt and certify," dose quote. The record shows that a phased approach of 20 to 40 to 80 cubic yards per day was to be incorporated into the New Era operation with expansion allowed per successful review of the Planning Commission. Again, there's no such record of such a review. What is less dear is whether the Phase 1 limit referred to a volume, an area or both., Phasing is referenced as an area in the three phases exhibit seen on page 20 in your attachments. The operators have argued that the 20 cubic yards per day limit represents a concentrate derived from some larger excavated volume. In an affidavit signed by Ronald Logan he states that he has, quote, "Never exceeded the 20 cubic yards of concentrated material for my 18 acre parcel," 27 close quote. Staff would like to point out that the UP 81-135 record does not mention the 20 cubic yards as a concentrate. The language in the record referencing 20 cubic yards per day appears to support the definition of the 20 cubic yard per day total as native material, a total volume. For example, the April 8th, 1982 Planning Commission minutes state, quote, "Ron Logan pointing to a map indicating that hydrology of the area is such that downstream springs would not be affected by the project and that he felt that the proposed $10,D00 bond requested was entirely unreasonable for the little hole that his proposed 20 cubic yards per day operation would make," dose quote. The relatively minor disturbance associated with the total volume of 20 cubic yards per day is also ackriowledged by Mr. Logan at the May 20th, 1982 approval hearing in the context of a discussion regarding the amount and type of financial assurance to be required. Quote, "Ron Logan took exception to the amount of the performance bond stating that they, had no place to store the overburden and had to put it back as they went along and that the contractors had estimated that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 entire 20 cubic yards per day could be replaced for $500 to $1,000. He asked whether a lien could be placed on his property rather than putting up the money for the bond; close quote. Accepting the operator's assertion that 20 cubic yards per day represents an end product of some unspecified greater volume begs the question of what that greater volume is. By the operator's argument, the permit would contain no upper limit to volume subject to disturbance if it can be shown to concentrate down to 20 cubic yards per day. The first violation can be summarized by the following question. Is the 20 cubic yards referenced in UP 81-135 a concentrated or total volume. And in either scenario, has condition 21 been violated. Staff concludes on the basis of the record that 20 cubic yards per day refers to a total volume and not a concentrate and that the current operation, 12 acres of disturbed land with some 100,000 cubic yards of material moved is in violation of condition 21. The second violation noted in the Revised Order to Comply refers to a change in the mining operation that results in a substantial deviation from 76 11 a7� ©-r G vee a AO, Or ��.� �l.i , c. �n C /� JBic: �� -• Gc./ /�Gl�,. cJ� �� , S i e4, � - /'e���r � cc . yd.. �d�' ��� vro� �=• c,o� a���i..'�� � �7�G /Jla�, • Transcript of Proceedings 29 31 approved reclamation plan. 1 approved end use of the site is substantially affected. Substantial deviation is defined as a change 2 Staff believes that the approved reclamation xpansion to a surface mining operation that, quote, 3 plan does not provide the standards or a stated approach stantially affects the completion of previously 4 to address the reclamation issues now present at the New roved reclamation plan or that changes the end, use of 5 Era site and the proposed end use is substantially [2b' approved plan to the extent that the scope of the 6 affected. amation plan required for the surface mining 7 In particular, staff believes that the phased ration is substantially changed," close quote. 8 reclamation spoken of in the record and intended in An amended reclamation plan must be approved 9 Condition 6, 11 and 13 of the permitis now impossiblethe lead agency prior to the commencement ofactivity 10 given the 12 acres of disturbance next to Dry Creek. termined to the substantial deviation from the approved11 Moving on the factor 4 regarding the 12 consistency of any proposedchange to the operation with n. Tide 14 of the California Code of Regulations 13 the previously adopted environmental determination. 14 Section 3502(d) provides five factors that a lead agency 14 Staff asks the commission to consider whether 15 shall consider in determining whether a change or 15 or not the current operation is consistent with the 16 expansion constitutes a substantial deviation: 16 mitigated negative declaration from UP 81-135 in 1982. 17 If a lead agency determines that an operation 17 Staff believes that the record shows that an 18 is a substantial violation — given substantial violation 18 EIR was not required in part because phasing was to be 19 for any one of these factors, an amended reclamation plan 19 utilized. 20 may be required. Pages 16 through 17 of the staff report 20 ' A mitigated negative declaration was thus 21 discuss these five factors and why. staff believes the 21 adopted with condition 21 requiring a phased approach. 22 current New Era operation represents a substantial 22 The record also shows that reclamation was to occur as 23 deviation from the operation originally improved. 23 mining proceeded. 24 For factor one we would ask the commission to 24 For example, on page 71 of your attachments 25 consider whether or not the current New Era Mine 25 Ron Logan states in his January 5th, 1982 letter to 30 32 1 operation represents a substantial increase in the 1 planner Steve Streeter, quote, "We think a bond would be 2 disturbance area first from what condition 21 allowed and 2 an unreasonable condition in that our reclamation plan ' 3 second, from the minor activity that apparently occurred 3 calls for land reclamation as we go." close quote. 4 during the period between 1982 and 2007. 4 That mitigated negative declaration was 5 Staff believes the current operation to be a 5 approved in association with condition 6 of the permit 6 substantial increase over both what was allowed by 6 that states, quote, " reserve as much vegetation as 7 condition 21 and by the historic activity at the mine. 7 possible to promote ground stability and reduce erosion,' B For factor 2 regarding the substantial B close quote, and with condition 11 that states, quote, 9 extension of determination date of the mining operation 9 "Undertake reclamation immediately once each open pit 10 in the approved reclamation plan, item 14 of the approved 10 mine has been processed" close quote. 11 reclamation plan which is on page 15 of your attachments 11 Given that phased reclamation is not possible 12 gives an estimated life of 50 to 100 years. 12 at.this time, it is staff's conclusion is that the 13 As staff has no current information as to the i3 current operation is not consistent with the adopted 14 termination date of the current operation, we cannot say 14 environmental determination for UP 81-135. 15 it is a substantial deviation from the 50 to 100 years 15 In regards to factor 5, staff believes that 16 anticipated in the approved reclamation plan. 16 the.current operation is not only a substantial deviation,. 17 For factor 3 and changes that would 17 from that permitted by the original permit but also from 18 substantially affect the approved end use of the site as 16 the minor mining activity that occurred at the site 19 established in the reclamation plan, the 1982 reclamation 19 between 1982 and the summer of 2007. 20 plan goal stated in item 23 on page 17 of the attachments 20 The second violation can be summarized by the 21 is, quote, "We want to put the land back_ and plant 21 question, does the current operation substantially 22 native" dose quote. 22 deviate from that permitted by UP 81-135 based on the 23 We would ask the commission to consider 23 information.provided in the record and in the staff 24 whether or not the approved 1982 reclamation plan 24 report. 25 addresses the extensive changes to the site such that the 25. On the basis of four of the five factors, Transcript of Proceedings 33 1 staff concludes that a substantial deviation has 2 occurred. 3 Moving to the third ,violation. As the current 4 operation has substantially deviated from that originally 5 permitted, it is also in violation of SMARA section 2777 6 and Butte County Code Section 13-113 which states that, 7 quote, "Substantial deviations from the original plan s shall not be undertaken until such amendment has been 9 filed with and approved by the Planning Commission." 30 The third violation can be summarized by the 11 following question. Is an amended reclamation plan 12 required. 13 To our knowledge, there has been no 14 application for an amended reclamation plan to reflect 15 ' thecurrent operation and an amended reclamation plan is 16 required. 17 Moving to the fourth violation. In both 1982 18 and the present, SMARA and Butte County code requires 19 surface mining operations to have an adequate financial 20 assurance for reclamation. 21 Again, 81-135 condition 5 required a 22 reclamation performance bond of $3,000 and no such - 23 assurance was submitted until the operators established 24 such a certificate of deposit for that amount on January 25 24, 2008. March 13, 2008 35 1 $3,000 certificate of deposit and have prepared a more 2 realistic cost estimate of about $200,000 reclamation, 3 staff concludes the New Era Mine has been and is in 4 violation of permit and county and state code s 5 requirements for adequate financial assurance. 6 Violation S. UP 81-135 condition 8 requires 7 that Dry Creek Road be improved from Messilla Valley Road 9 at such time as mining traffic warrants to reduce vehicle 9 dust impacts and for traffic safety purposes. 10 Dry Creek Road is a private road, very narrow 11, and winding as it proceeds north from Dry Creek Canyon. 12 on January 28th, 2008, staff met with about 30 13 residents concerned about the New Era Mine operation. A 14 summary of that meeting is on pages 311 through 313 of 15 the�attachments. 16 At this meeting and in many of the letters 11 submitted to the commission, a number of residents' 18 concerns are expressed regarding damage to the road, 19 noise, dust, hours of operation and road safety. 20 1 believe that there are a number of residents 21 here today who would like to speak on these issues. 22" The fifth violation can be summarized by the 23 question, is the operation in compliance with condition 8 24 of UP 81-135. 25 As the staff report notes, the operators have 36 1 made an extensive effort to maintain Dry Creek Road. 2 However, staff believes the current operation 3 of the New Era Mine is not consistent with the existing 4 permit and that road maintenance and road safety would 5 appropriately be addressed in a revised permit process. 6 Moving to violation 6. Condition 9 of the 7 permit requires the operator to have adequate erosion 8 control such that all graded areas and the stream bank 9 are stabilized with proper drainage for the open pit mine 10 area. 11 As the staff report notes, both the Water 12 Quality Control Board's representative and Butte County 13 SMARA inspection consultant found that adequate erosion 14 control measures as required in condition 9 were not in 15 place at the time of the December 5th, 2007 site 16 inspection. 17 These site stability issues lead to the 16 Cleanup and Abatement Order from the water board to the 19 operators on December 17. 20 It has to be stated that the operators 21 immediately engaged an experienced engineering firm and 22 at considerable expense commenced stabilization work soon 23 thereafter. That work continued through the extreme 24 rains of late December and early January. 25 At this time the regional board reports that 90 34 1 On pages 220 and 221 of the attachments again 2 you'll see these separate affidavits signed by Ronald and 3 Betty Logan stating that they met with then planning 4 director Bettye Kircher on June 12, 1982, and apparently 5 agreed that a lien would be placed on the Logan property 6 to satisfy reclamation bond requirements. - 7 Staff has found no record of this lien and it 8 'does appear to contradict the bond requirement in 9 condition 5. Further, the record does not show support 10 for a lien. 11 In a May 18, 1982 memo, then deputy Public 12 Works director William Chaff recommended a $5,000 13 performance bond and in the May 20th, 1982 Planning 14 Commission minutes Commissioner Schrader, quote, 15 "reminded the commission of the requirement for a We 16 search prior to placing a lien and the necessity and 17 expense of a foreclosure sale of the land for just a 18 little reclamation work," dose quote. 19 The fourth violation can be summarized by the 20 question, does the Planning Commission believe adequate 21 financial assurance is in place. • 22 A financial assurance must be based on an with the 23 approved reclamation plan that is consistent 24 mining operation. 25 Although the operators have established the 36 1 made an extensive effort to maintain Dry Creek Road. 2 However, staff believes the current operation 3 of the New Era Mine is not consistent with the existing 4 permit and that road maintenance and road safety would 5 appropriately be addressed in a revised permit process. 6 Moving to violation 6. Condition 9 of the 7 permit requires the operator to have adequate erosion 8 control such that all graded areas and the stream bank 9 are stabilized with proper drainage for the open pit mine 10 area. 11 As the staff report notes, both the Water 12 Quality Control Board's representative and Butte County 13 SMARA inspection consultant found that adequate erosion 14 control measures as required in condition 9 were not in 15 place at the time of the December 5th, 2007 site 16 inspection. 17 These site stability issues lead to the 16 Cleanup and Abatement Order from the water board to the 19 operators on December 17. 20 It has to be stated that the operators 21 immediately engaged an experienced engineering firm and 22 at considerable expense commenced stabilization work soon 23 thereafter. That work continued through the extreme 24 rains of late December and early January. 25 At this time the regional board reports that 90 • March 13, 2008 3-7 39 1 although required stabilization work is not yet complete, 1 Finally, under the preparation of a financial 2 the operators are satisfactorily complying with the 2 assurance cost estimate, the state mining and geology 3 Cleanup and Abatement Order. 3 board financial assurance guidelines require that the 4 Public Works is also here today and can speak` 4 cost estimate be based on, quote, "an analysis of the 5 to the stabilization of the New Era site. 5 physical activities necessary to implement the approved 6 The sixth violation can be summarized by the 6 reclamation plan," Gose quote. 7 question is the operation in compliance with condition 9 7 Again, does the approved reclamation plan from 8 1982 address the current operation's reclamation issues. 8 of UP 81-135. 9 While interim stabilization measures are 9 We're getting close to the end here. The 1D satisfactorily complying with the Cleanup and Abatement 10 recommendations and findings. 11 Order, staff believes the current operation of New Era 11 Staff is recommending that the Planning 12 Mine is not consistent with the existing permit and 12 Commission affirm the six requirements in the Revised 13 stabilization would appropriately be addressed in a 13 Order to Comply. " 14 revised permit and reclamation plan process. is To do so, we would ask that you direct us to 15 Finally, violation 7 as stated in this 15 prepare a resolution with findings. 16 violation and as discussed above, the New Era -Mine 16 Towards that end, we've included in pages 41 17 has not complied with state and local reporting 17 through 46 of the staff report a number of procedural and operation 18 requirements as itemized for the period between 1982 and 18 substantive findings for your consideration. 19 2007 and is therefore in violation of UP 81-135, 19 We'd like to close with some photos taken 20 condition 24. 2 D yesterday at the New Era Mine after an invitation by the 21 The state reporting requirements are annual 21 operators. 22 inspection reports since 1990, annual production reports 22 To conclude, on a number of occasions, the 23 since prior to 1982, and annual cost estimates for 23 operators have stated their desire to be in compliance 24 reclamation since 1994. 24 with county code and state regulations. 25 If the Planning Commission determined that the 25 Given the current operation and its 38 40 1 current operation is consistent with the existing permit, 1 environmental impact what form should that compliance 2 the office of mine reclamation would require the 2 take. 3 submittal of necessary reports, inspections and financial 3 The operators have prepared a more realistic 4 assurance for compliance. 4 financial assurance cost estimate. They have done 5 If the Planning Commission determines that the 5 extensive work to stabilize the site. They have done 6 current operation is not consistent with the existing 6 extensive road maintenance. 7 permit, then subsequent permitting activities would 7 Staff believes, however, that the overarching 8 address necessary reports, inspections and financial 8 question for the commission to consider is whether of not 9 the current New Era operation is covered by UP 81-135 or 9 assurance. 10 The seventh violation can be summarized by the 10 rather that a new permit, reclamation plan and financial 11 question, what is required to bring the operation into ; , 11 assurance are necessary. That concludes my remarks. 12 compliance with state and local reporting requirements. 12 Thank you. 13 We understand that the operators have 13 MR. THISTLETHWAITE: Through the chair, if I 14 apparently offered to work with the office of mine 14 could, in having an opportunity to watch the Power Point,' 15 reclamation to prepare past reporting requirements and is I did note that one of the earlier site photos that was 16 presume that the operator would fulfill future reporting 16 presented in the presentation had a date of December — , 17 requirements. 17 or excuse me, February 15, 2007. That date should have 18 Is the answer to the question, then, that the 18 been February 15, 2008. 19 operators simply start reporting at this point. 19 And in addition to that copies of the most 20 The surface mining annual inspection report 20 recent photographs which 1 had the opportunity to take on 21 has two questions on it. Does the operation have a 21 a site inspection yesterday are included in the materials 22 permit to mine and does it have an approved reclamation 22. that have been provided to you today. 23 MS. LAMBERT: The material to be provided? 23 plan. 24 What is the answer in regards to those 24 'MR. THISTLETHWAITE: That have been provided 25 questions with the current New Era Mine operation. 25 to you today. 79 Transcript of, Proceedings . March 13, 2008 41 93 1 by the number of days and the two aerials photographsand 1 MS. LAMBERT: Got it 2 CHAIR WILSON: Thank you staff. 2 come up with some number. 3 MR. MARIN: I have a question. How did the 3 The whole basis for this is that they were - 4 county determine that the permit had lapsed? Was it 4 exceeding the 20 cubic yards per day level and — 5 because of the idle operation? 5 MR. THOMAS: And the historic average — what 6 MR. THOMAS: Well, we needed a determination 6 we believe to be the historic average of activity at the 7 that it had lapsed at the point of the notice of 7 site. B MR. LELAND: You can't really know that unless B violation. So that's in the December 20th notice of 9 you know how much — how fast, I mean, what the per day 9 violation to the operators. 10 The operators subsequent — and we made that l0 cubic yardage is. 11 determination -on the basis of the lack of required 11 MR. THOMAS: As I said, Josh Brennan reported 12 reports, financial assurances, the lack of any knowledge 12 to me on June 5th, 2007, a clean small well run 13 of an ongoing operation at the mine. 13 operation. When code enforcement visited on October 24, 14 The operators, as I said, subsequently 14 2007, they, reported back an extensive operation, , 15 submitted a substantial amount of information in the form 15 essentially what we see today. 16 of affidavits, photographs, receipts, etcetera, by which 16 Well, W.s been reworked since what we saw in 17 they asserted that mining was ongoing at the site. 17 October, but the aerial disturbance is approximately the 16 So in the Revised — Order and Revised Order 19 judgment as to whether or not the permit 18 same. 19 MR. NELSON: When is an inactive operation staff reserved 20 considered — for the purposes of a use perrnit, does it 20 had lapsed. 21 MR. NELSON: So this thing was triggered by 21 have to be continuously in operation? 22 one of the neighbors calling and somebody going and doing 22 If it goes down for sox months or year that 23 an inspection. 23 it's — what is — how does that — MR. THISTLETHWAITE- At one point Chapter 13 24 That's what triggered this whole hearing we 24 , 25 of Butte County code with regards to SMARA talked about 25 have today, is that what I'm — 42 44 1 MR. THOMAS: I would say that's accurate, 1 basically discontinuance of an operation for a period of hl 2 yeah. MR. NELSON: Once this scale went from the 2 a year or greater. 3 That section was removed and is not currently 3 4 first level of operation to what we're starting to see 4 — well, it was in at the time the project was approved. 5 right now in the pictures, them that sort of seta bunch 5 Its not currently in. county code. 6 of things in motion to look at this permit which leads to 6 - It requires that you basically establish the 7 us where we are today? 7 use within five years. What we did receive from the B MR. THOMAS: Correct. a applicant and I think Chris tried to clarify this 9 MR. LELAND: Does the county know what the 9 towards the end of his presentation is that we have I 0 scale of the operation is in terms of cubic yards per 10 received evidence in the forms of annual information 11 that's been provided to us that documented that some 11 day? 12 The only evidence I saw is that there's a 12 level of activity had occurred 13 stockpile of a hundred thousand yards. 13 We, as staff, have not made a determination as MR. THOMAS: Hundred thousand cubic yards of 14 to exactly what level of mining is required to maintain a 14 15 soil displaced. That was estimate by Tom Odekirk from 15 valid operation. 1 think that there's probably some ambiguity 16 Public Works. We dont have an estimate of material moved, 16 17 in that, both in our county code and under the state 17 1B Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. 18 we do not, per day. MS. JOLLIFFE: I might also comment through 19 What we were able to determine was that some 19 20 the chair that staff reviewed aerial photographs to 20 level of mining activity associated with this project had 21 determine approximate —you know, to assess soil 21 occurred at least on an annual basis, and for that reason 22 disturbance over time. Chris showed you the 2006 aerial 22 the Revised Order to Comply does not assert in any way • 23 whir doesn't show disturbance. That sort of 23 that the permit is somehow invalid because of none photograph 24 an analysis was also performed. 24 operation. 25 MR. NELSON: Well, wouldn't the concept be if z5 MR. LELAND: Divide a hundred thousand yards f. gp • Transcript of Proceedings March 13, ,2008 47 MR. THISTLETHWAITE: The Revised Order to Comply would commence that process. MRJNELSON: They would use their old permit while they are,— or how would that work? They would just use their old permit and things would go as is until — MR. THISTLETHWAITE: Under this scenario that's laid out in the Revised Order to Comply, the, operators would be able to continue operation in compliance with the original terms of approval of the use pernit provided that they met the milestones and specific requirements of the Revised Order. MS. LAMBERT: Is it also true that if after we hear all of the speakers and we decide that a whole new process should be started with a whole new use permit and maybe reclamation plan that reflects what is there today and go forward, then they would not continue to operate while that's going on, would they? MR. THISTLETHWAITE If you determine that for some reason the use permit, reclamation plan is invalid, then you would wish to consider making findings and : amending what staff has prepared as the Revised Order to Comply. And, yes, you could consider as was mentioned by Chris, options up to and including issues such as an 45 1 they continued to submit their paperwork if they 1 2 continued to do the things required under the permit 2 3 whether they really mined or not, that means at least 3 4 5 there's a — MR. THISTLETHWAITE: Well, therein is a 4 5 6 problem because had we received copies of. production 6 7 reports as required under state law or annual inspections 7 8 had been conducted on the project, then we would have a 3 9 much better record to operate from now. 9 10 MS. LAMBERT: Have we established 'rf we've 10 11 ' passed Phase V MR. THISTLETHWAITE: I suspect you will hear a 11 i2 12 13 lot of information with regards to what constitutes Phase : 13 14 1 and where we're at on that. 14 15 MS. LAMBERT: This is — 15 16 MR. THISTLETHWAITE: The position of staff was 16 17 that it's 20 cubic yards of material per day and staff 17 18 has in the Revised Order to Comply determined that that 1 B 19 threshold has been exceeded. 19 20 MS. LAMBERT: I thought I read somewhere also 20 21' a mention of five years, but I could be wrong on that, at 21 22 23 the original. MR. THISTLETHWAITE: There is evidence in the 22 23 24 . record at one point that there was a discussion about the 24 25 operation being completed within a five year period. 25 March 13, ,2008 47 MR. THISTLETHWAITE: The Revised Order to Comply would commence that process. MRJNELSON: They would use their old permit while they are,— or how would that work? They would just use their old permit and things would go as is until — MR. THISTLETHWAITE: Under this scenario that's laid out in the Revised Order to Comply, the, operators would be able to continue operation in compliance with the original terms of approval of the use pernit provided that they met the milestones and specific requirements of the Revised Order. MS. LAMBERT: Is it also true that if after we hear all of the speakers and we decide that a whole new process should be started with a whole new use permit and maybe reclamation plan that reflects what is there today and go forward, then they would not continue to operate while that's going on, would they? MR. THISTLETHWAITE If you determine that for some reason the use permit, reclamation plan is invalid, then you would wish to consider making findings and : amending what staff has prepared as the Revised Order to Comply. And, yes, you could consider as was mentioned by Chris, options up to and including issues such as an 48 order to cease and desist operations on the, site, imposition of administrative penalties as provided by Butte County code and up to or including revocation of the use permit. ,. MS. LAMBERT: And if that were the case, what would the timeline be for the process if they chose,to do that — a month, a year — to go through a new use permit, reclamation plan process, three months? MR. THISTLETHWAITE: I think the time frame would be substantially similar to what you've seen laid out in the Revised Order to Comply. MS. LAMBERT: Not greater. MR. THISTLETHWAITE: Not substantially greater. But, again, you know, it would depend on the circumstances and the exact requirements of the order that could be issued by your commission. MS. LAMBERT: Okay. MR. THOMAS: If you go to page 1 of your attachments, the compliance schedule is located there. MR. NELSON: It sounds like staff -is trying to get the compliance. That's essentially what you're trying to do. MR. THISTLETHWAITE: That is correct. The purpose of this Revised Order to Comply and the ' X 46 1 However, that was not included in any of the 1 2 conditions of approval that were, attached to the 1992 use 2 3 permit 3 4 4 MS. LAMBERT: Just in the discussion. 5 MR. THISTLETHWAITE: That is correct. 5 6 MR. NELSON: Now, is staffs recommendation 6 . 7 essentially that we issue this order for them to comply 7 e and then they would continue their operation while they 8 9 are trying to go through the compliance process, is that 9 10 where you're coming from? - 10 11 MR. THISTLETHWAITE: That is'corect. What 11 12 the Revised Order to Comply issued by the county 12 13 essentially lays out is a path to compliance and it ' 13 14 establishes specific steps that need to be taken and a 14 15 time frame within which those steps need to be fulfilled 15 16 in order to bring the mine into what staff asserts is 16 17 ' compliance with county code, the requirements of the use 11 18 permit, and the state Mining and Reclamation Act 18 19 MS. LAMBERT: But that's dependent upon 19 20 whether you find that it is a good permit that they are 20 21 working under, that you don'tsuspend it or ask for a new 21 22 one or — am I right? MR. THISTLETHWAITE: That is cored. 22 23 23 24 MR. NELSON: So you're recommending that we 24 25 start a process and — essentially start a new process? 25 48 order to cease and desist operations on the, site, imposition of administrative penalties as provided by Butte County code and up to or including revocation of the use permit. ,. MS. LAMBERT: And if that were the case, what would the timeline be for the process if they chose,to do that — a month, a year — to go through a new use permit, reclamation plan process, three months? MR. THISTLETHWAITE: I think the time frame would be substantially similar to what you've seen laid out in the Revised Order to Comply. MS. LAMBERT: Not greater. MR. THISTLETHWAITE: Not substantially greater. But, again, you know, it would depend on the circumstances and the exact requirements of the order that could be issued by your commission. MS. LAMBERT: Okay. MR. THOMAS: If you go to page 1 of your attachments, the compliance schedule is located there. MR. NELSON: It sounds like staff -is trying to get the compliance. That's essentially what you're trying to do. MR. THISTLETHWAITE: That is correct. The purpose of this Revised Order to Comply and the ' X • • Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 49 51 1 proceedings before your commission is not inteJor MR. O'BRIEN: You know, Dry Creek Road is a 2 a punitive measure. 2 private road. It's a fairly narrow road. It has lately 3 This is an attempt to bring the operation i3 received some work on it 4 compliance with the requirements of county co4 .1 cannot, you know, tell you how much has been 5 state Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.5 done because I've only been out on the road one time and 6 MR. NELSON: To reflect where they are6 that was yesterday. 7 now, the scale they are at this time versus whe7 The road itself seems to be in reasonably good 8 were back in '81. a shape. How that will hold up does depend on how many 9 MR. THISTLETHWAITE: We attempted9 vehicles will traverse it 10 that issue yes, sir. o . At the moment — you know,when I was out 11 MR. NELSON: Did you want to go over1there I saw a number of people working. The type of 12 — you addressed page 190. 2 vehicles that I saw go in and out were light vehicles, 13 MR. THOMAS: I just brought it up to say this , 13 cars and trucks. You know, pickups, not heavy loaded 14 is where the compliance schedule is, this is the actual 14 trucks. 15 If we're talking about one large truck , 15 16 order. MR. NELSON: Thank you. 16 carrying 20 yards of material a day, the road is probably 17. MR. MARIN: The question I have is what amount 11 adequate. 18 of material, native material is being moved per the 18 If we're talking about hundreds of trucks, 19 current production reports that the county is receiving? 19 which 1 don't — you know, again, I'm not saying that 20 MS. JOLLIFFE: Mr. Chairman, Shawn O'Brien is 20 that is what's happening — then I think that road will 21 here from the Department of Public Works, although 1 21 experience some problems. 22 don't want to put him on the spot, I guess 1 am, to give 22 . MR. LELAND: We need to find out what the 23 you a sense of scale of the amount of moved material. 23 scale of the operation is. I'm sure one of the people 24 MR. O'BRIEN: My name is Shawn O'Brien. I'm 24 here can tell us. 25 the — I work for the Department of Public Works. 25 MR. NELSON: Can you give me an idea, go over 50 52 1 A sense of — you know, somewhat of a sense of 1 it one more time. 2 scale on the amount of material they've moved — its 2 You said many fold based on what our original 3 been represented that about roughly a hundred thousand 3 permit says that they should use. 4 yards of material is in a stockpile. 4 You were trying to compare the 20,000 to 5 If you look at that as a 20 cubic yards per 5 what's out there now and you said — 6 day operation, you are talking about roughly 5,000 days. 6 MR. O'BRIEN: The 20 yards per day, you . 7 That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years without 7 know — again, without getting into the issue of whether 8 a day off. You know, its somewhere in the neighborhood 8 it's 20 yards leaving the site or 20 yards of production 9 of 19 years in terms of a five day a week operation. 1 . 9 a day, if you have a stockpile of a hundred thousand 10 don't know if that adds to your clarity. 10 yards, 20 yards a day represents a substantial number of 11 MR. MARIN: No. 11 years' worth of work. , e 12 MR. LELAND: While you're up there, I had a 12 MR. NELSON: I think we've got it in real 13 question for Public Works.. You know, theres been some 13 simple terms now, thank you. 14 improvements to Dry Creek Road. 14 CHAIR WILSON: Okay. Any more questions of 15 One of the issues is if we had an application 15 staff? 16 or if we analyzed the environmental impacts of the larger 16 At this time we'll open the public hearing and 17 scale, there may be an impact. There may be an 17 give the operators and owners of the mine an opportunity 18 environmental impact on Dry Creek Road. 18 to make their presentation. 19 Do you have any sense now — and 1 know you're 19 MR. MORAN: Good morning. My name is John 20 handicapped because you don't have the production report 20 Moran. I'm speaking today on behalf of New Era Mine. 21 so you don't know what the scale is. 21 Members of the Planning Commission and of the 22 But do you have a sense, can you tell us what 22 general public, I'm an attorney from Chicago, Illinois. 23 you think of the existing improvements to Dry Creek Road 23 I'm here in a consulting capacity before this ' 24 what's needed to accommodate the larger scale mine 24 hearing on behalf of North Continent Land and Timber, versus 25 activity? 125 Incorporated. • 1 �i Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 , 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 I'm a member of the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. I'm a member of the bar of Illinois and Colorado. I'm a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court and I've appeared in the United States Supreme Court in Brown versus Illinois and Browder versus Illinois Department of Corrections, which we won both cases. Sitting with me is Blair Will who is from the Sacramento law firm of Scharff, Brady and Vnding, and I believe Thomas Chung who is a banister from Toronto, Canada is also with us. From North Continent Land and Timber are Lee Ogle, the president; Frank Noland, the vice president; and we have Carl Gales, one of our engineers present today and he's going to be addressing you on some of the issues that you are concemed with. - We also have Don Olsen who is a principle in the Califomia consulting firm of Holdrege and Kull who is a state licensed civil engineer, a state licensed geologist — a state registered geologist, excuse me, a state licensed and registered hydrologist, and he's also going to be available to speak with you about some of the issues that have come up to date. In the time that we have, first of all, I . don't propose to sit here and read my notes to you about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 the legal issues. I'll try and summarize those. On March the 10th or on a document filed March 10, 2008, we prepared and filed a package of materials which addressed the legal issues in great depth. Attached to that packet are a number of tabbed sections, one section discussing what we call placer mining. Another section that has the mining and reclamation permit that was issued in this case. It is not a use permit It is a mining permit Also attached thereto is the reclamation plan and the notice of determination by the Planning Commission back in 1982 Finally, there s a copy of the compliance inspection report by the Water Quality Board. I'm told yesterday the Water Quality Board agreed to remove its abatement order, that we were in .full compliance at this point and they'll continue to monitor water quality at the site. Now, in the time that we've got I do want to . cover a number of points. Issues that I don't get to today we would ask the members of the commission to at the substantial filings that we've introduced. I think yesterday you got a small forest worth of documents and papers. March 13, 2008 55 1 They are indexed and are available to you for 2 your review as our statements get in the record and as 3 you have a chance to look at what we say versus what 4 staff has said today. ' 5 We would also like to incorporate by reference 6 previous letters that we've sent to staff along with 7 their attachments, and this is quite a large number of 8 documents. 9 If there's any question as to what those 10' previous letter communications with staff are, let us 11 know and we can recopy them and supply them to you in the 12 next five days. Now - 13 MR. LELAND: How do we know what those letters 14 are? 15 If you're incorporating them by reference we 16 should look at them. We have a stack, but how are we 17 going to know if the ones you're incorporating by 18 reference are included in our stack? 19 MR. MORAN: I'll go down the list of the index 20 . that we filed and 191 make sure that you got everything 21 . and if you don't, I'll bring them over to you in the next 22 24 hours. 23 We were talking about incorporating it into 24 part of the administrative record for purposes of further 25 review. We want to just be sure that it's there. 56 . 1 MR. NELSON: These are letters that are in 2 response to the violations? I guess I'm trying to get — 3 MR. MORAN: Yes. These are letters that there 4 was an ongoing dialogue from approximately December to 5 the March 10 letter I filed directly with you, examining 6 in.great detail both the assumptions and the conclusions 7 of staff in this particular matter. 8 And because of the great, detail, 1 think 9 there's one letter that's dated January the 16th of 2008 10 which has enormous detail. It almost goes line by line 11 on the violation and presents our position on each of 12 those various issues. 13 The March the 10th letter refers to that and 14 summarizes it, but it's not in as great detail as the 15 January 16th letter. 16 MR. LELAND: The March 10 letter is signed by 17 James Noland. 18 MR. MORAN: James Noland and Lee Ogle. Okay. 19, The first point that I want to make is that a moment ago 20 we had — oh, here's the list of documents that have been 21 submitted to date, and that was submitted on the 13th. took 22 its a substantial number of documents which 23 we believe are very important to consideration of this N. case. 25 The permit itself, get that back up - this is a • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 the permit What's interesting is that we didn't — the county was never able to locate the validated permit We had a copy of it, but the county files apparently have a document that does not include the date. The date is not in question, but July 9 of 1982 appears on the copy that we have and there's nothing similar on the MR. WANNENMACHER: Could I ask — did you give that list to staff or the commission that you put up just before showing the permit, the list of all the documents that you wanted incorporated? So you gave one copy — you have one copy of that 'is that right? MR. THOMAS: Yes. MR. MORAN: If you want another copy, we can — MR. WANNENMACHER:, Do you recognize all the documents on that list? I mean, are those documents you believe we ve received? ' Why don't you, take some time to look and see if you can figure it out MR. MORAN: I'm sorry. I don't know who is speaking. MR. MARIN: Felix — County Counsel Wannenmacrer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 •1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 MR. MORAN: I'm going to have the engineer speak to some of the issues, but the key issue here is that the Planning Commission issued a validated mining, permit on July the 9th of 1982. That permit is not a use permit It is a mining permit Therefore, its not subject to Chapter 24: and Chapter 24's lapsed provisions. . Almost from the inception in this particular matter, staff has taken to referring to the permit in this case as UP 81-135 or 82-135. There is no such denomination, no such suggestion that this is a use permit That was created by staff in order to try and place this permit under the provisions of Chapter 24 in order to make their lapse argument that the provisions of Chapter 24 somehow applied to this case and the permit .lapsed by — under the situation that you described, Commissioner Nelson, time passing. The same is true — we've heard comments here about the permit and we've also heard comments about the reclamation plan. Where it serves staff purpose, they refer to the permit and the redamation plan. Where it doesn't serve their purposes, suddenly they do not refer to the reclamation plan. 59 Both documents were validated by the commission and both documents should be read together in order to have an understanding of what's going on in this particular case and our position. Beginning in March of 2007 and over the next six months, New Era Mine and North Continent Land 11 and Timber began site preparations in order to commence placer mining on Dry Creek Road. They did this in conformity with the notice of determination of May 26 of 1982 and this particular mining and reclamation plan approved by the commission on July 9, 1982. Miller Mines doesn't apologize for the fad that its a gold mine operation. It doesn't apologize for the fact that its a commercial mining venture. The object of the mine is to generate money by supplying a nonrenewable commodity, gold, onto the market at a time when the price of gold is at an all time high had. In fact, the price of gold controls whether or not these types of mines can be profitable, can be viable. It also provides numerous jobs in a downtumed economy. Placer gold mining, I believe because you reside here you probably all know, most of the people 60 1 here have done some sort of pan mining, everybody in a 2 sense here has done mining, understands mining and is a 3 miner in that sense. 4 It's simply moving topsoil and overburden out 5 of the way and lifting -- using heavy equipment to lift 6 and drop sand and gravel into conveyor belts using 7 gravity screening in order to get what we call the 8 product 9 Our position, of course, is that the product 10 is — that were allowed to produce is the 20 cubic yards 11 at the end of the day, which amounts to approximately one 12 dump truck of end product 13 So what the gentleman from the Department of 14 Public Works said earlier is, in fact, the reality, that 15 we are moving one dump truck of product out of there a 16 ' day.. That's what's being removed. This is about 4 17 percent of the amount of material that goes through the. 18 screening process. 19 Now, as he indicated, that does not 20 substantially impact the gravel road. The gravel road 21 which I rode on myself is, in fact, in some of the best 22 • condition of gravel roads Ire ever been on. Perhaps 23 that's just a problem with the midwest, but it seems to 24 me to be in great shape. Yes, its narrow but its been 25 ; narrow for a long, long time. MA I • Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 85 61 63 1 Not only that, but we're not the only 1 the responsibility of conducting and initiating 2 commercial venture on Dry Creek Road that uses it. There 2 inspections. 3 MR. MARIN: Aren't you responsible for 3 are other businesses there, including a large nursery,. 4 that have regular to and from deliveries from outfits 4 production reports? 5 as UPS and Fed Ex and those trucks, unlike ours, are 5 MR. MORAN: We're responsible for production 6 such subject to the speed limits that we've created of 15 6 reports - tore came in in March of 2007. 7 not miles an hour for vehicles going to and from our 7 MR. MARIN: You reported for 25 years in a 9 facility. And the nursery is below us, but those trucks a arrears? 9 MR. MORAN: Well, we had a discussion about 10 go down the entire road and they can kick up a lot of 10 inspection reports and the bottom line is according to — 11 dust The UPS drivers are under the clock and that makes 11 and I'll have Mr. Will talk about that in a minute, but 12 a significant difference, and we have no control over 12 you can't go back and rewrote a 1988 inspection report in 13 2007 or 2008. That's the problem we all face. 13 14 them. We are, however, ready, willing and able to do 14 MR. MARIN: Right So are you also saying 15 what we can to improve the road for the benefit of the 15 that native materials is the same as raw material in this 16 residents on the road. That's not a problem as far as 16, case, or you're talking about the extracted product as 17 New Era Mining is concerned. 17 being, you know, 20 cubic yards, one dump truck? 18 Wtien we take the product from the site there 18 MR. MORAN: Well, I think it would be better 19 is waste that remains on the site. You're going to hear 19 if you ask the engineers exactly the terminology that is 20 the engineers exactly how this works, but this is a 20 _ precise because I think that you're raising a good point 21 .from plan that contemplates almost at least in the terms of 21 and the good point is that we need precision in the 22 meaning almost immediate reclamation, because when 96 22 definitions of what we're talking about: 23 ' percent of the product remains you're going to be shortly 23 I think that when you read the reclamation 24 filling up the initial hole that you've dug with the 24 plan together with the mining permit that was issued in 25' material thafs left after you've taken the concentrate 25 1982, it's clear that in Phase 1 we had the right to take 62 64 1 out 20 cubic yards of the concentrated material 1 out of it 2 In this particular site — well, I want to 2 MR: MARIN: To me concentrated material and 3 address one other thing that came up, because our 3 native material are not the same. a contacts with DDS didn't begin in October _ or September 4 MR. MORAN: Well, if I used the word native I 5 or October or November of 2007. ,Mc Gales, our engineer, 5 misspoke, but my reference was that after we remove the 6 met with Mr. Thomas in March of 2007 to discuss some of _ 6 topsoil and overburden, the sand and gravel underneath 7 the issues involved in the site leaning and this sort of 7 there is what we put into the conveyor belts and out of B thing, so I'm not sure where that comes from. 8 that is extracted under the placer system the 9 The other thing that has been bandied about is 9 concentrated product, hydrated ore. 10 that — and this comes out in some of the violations, 10 And after — we have never exceeded the 20 11 which we'll discuss in detail later, is the fact that we 11 cubic yards, nor do we have an immediate intent to exceed 12 were somehow responsible for inspections. 12 .that level. 13 The process that we use has been described by 13 The permit and the reclamation plan 14 specifically contained language by this commission that 14 some of the state officials as quieter, more efficient, 15 the county was to inspect three times a year the New Era 15 more environmentally friendly than similar processes 16 Mine as it existed in 1982. 16 going on right now in this county. 11 They didn't do an inspection until we 17 So I think right now to speak to'various 18 an inspection in order to meet SMARA compliance 18 points from an'engineering perspective, I'm going to call . suggested 19 on first Cad Gales, our engineer, and then Don Olsen, 19 in November of 2007. 20 There was then an exchange of e-ma8s and 20 our consulting engineer. 21 Mr. Thomas indicated that he had a consultant available 21 They will speak to questions that arise from 22 on December 5th and we said, fine, bring him out and the 22 DDS and the violation concerning the scope issue, because 23 that's one of the major intentions of DDS, that we're 23 inspection took place. So there was no county inspection for 25 24 beyond the scope of the permit and the reclamation plan. 24 25 years. That's not our problem. We are not the ones wifi 25 • And they are going to address in that light 85 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings • • 67 We've been doing that all our life, where I come, from which is Oklahoma. You know, the government ells me what to do. We fill out the forms. So there's where we are. Mr. Logan in 1982 got him a permit; did him a reclamation plan. What else they ask for? Went to work. Mick here, one of the three boys and one girl, went to work with him, and they worked like crazy. .He raised those kids out there on that 18 acres gold mining. They grew up. • Some of them are still gold mining. Mr. Logan is still gold mining out there. Every day he shows up on our operations and watches us, every day. That's his nature. So we talk about what he got He got a mining permit He fought diligently, from what I have researched, about two years to get this permit, and then all of a sudden it went off the face of the earth. No correspondence. No phone calls from the neighbors for 25 years. Where did this go? He was raising a family. He was mining. He had numerous people come in and try to help him. There's all kinds of pictures of heavy equipment, excavators, trammels. When we got on the'site in March this last year of 2007, 1 was one of the first 65 1 the phasing questions and the definitions and conclusions 1 2 to be drawn about phasing and the meaning ultimately then 2 3 of what the 20 cubic yards of material references. 3 t 4 Our position is categorically that we are 4 5 - within the exact terms of the original permit and we have 5 6 some visual materials that will show that we are, in 6 7 fart almost precisely following Ron's initial plans that 7 8 he filed with this commission. 8 9 MR. NELSON: So my question was how do you 9 i o want to resolve this — what we ve started and how do you 10 11 want to resolve this process? 11 12 1 asked staff the same question and you're 12 13 saying that you don't think you need to resolve it 13 14 because there's not a problem, is that what you're 14 15 saying? 15 16 MR. MORAN: We don't believe that there's a 16 17 problem. 17 18 And we believe that both the SMARA compliance 1B. 19 requirements, the compliance overview by the water 19 20 quality people, Fish and Game people, and DDS in terms of 20' 21 the permit that is existing is more than adequate under 21 22 the amount of material that we are processing at this 22 23 time. 23 24 1 believe that you, Commissioner Lambert, 24 25 mentioned the fact how big'is this operation? 25 67 We've been doing that all our life, where I come, from which is Oklahoma. You know, the government ells me what to do. We fill out the forms. So there's where we are. Mr. Logan in 1982 got him a permit; did him a reclamation plan. What else they ask for? Went to work. Mick here, one of the three boys and one girl, went to work with him, and they worked like crazy. .He raised those kids out there on that 18 acres gold mining. They grew up. • Some of them are still gold mining. Mr. Logan is still gold mining out there. Every day he shows up on our operations and watches us, every day. That's his nature. So we talk about what he got He got a mining permit He fought diligently, from what I have researched, about two years to get this permit, and then all of a sudden it went off the face of the earth. No correspondence. No phone calls from the neighbors for 25 years. Where did this go? He was raising a family. He was mining. He had numerous people come in and try to help him. There's all kinds of pictures of heavy equipment, excavators, trammels. When we got on the'site in March this last year of 2007, 1 was one of the first 68 ones on the site. There was tunnels, there was open pits, there was machinery on .the site, there was green briars, there was blackberry bushes, there was four ponds. There was rattlesnakes and there was a lot of danger. There was a bridge that I looked at that needed some repair. So where do.we start? MR. MARIN: Sir, I have a question. Are you an engineer? MR. GALES: Yes. MR. MARIN: Okay. Because you're talking more like an attorney, but I have engineering questions. MR. GALES: I want to answer those. MR. MARIN: Can you explain to me what is hydrated ore? MR. GALES: Okay.' There is basically on this site what we categorize as three distinct items that we deal with. Number one, topsoil. The way we deal with topsoil in any operation is you carefully take the topsoil off, you stockpile it and you conserve it because you're going to put that back on top of any pit that you may dig. The next one is the overburden. Overburden can be anything from dirt, rock, of that nature, no .66 1 Right now and for the near future, this 1 2 operation is 20 cubic yards of concentrate removed from 2 3 the site a day during the six-day week contemplated by 3 4 the reclamation plan and by the permit. 4 5 Let me have the engineers talk to these 5 6 questions and. I believe they will be more able to answer 6 7 your questions in some detail. This is Carl Gales. 7 8 MR. GALES: Carl Gales. Good morning. My 8 9 head is spinning and I don't know about y'all. I've 9 10 heard a lot of terms, a lot of legal stuff, and I'm just 10 11 'sort of amazed. I. 11 12 1 started out about 45 years ago and Mr. Logan 12 13 started out about 25 years ago, and we were doing the 13 14 same thing, trying to make a living for our family. 14 15 Now, he was going into gold mining and I went 15 16 in from the cotton fields to construction work, got me an 16 17 education and became an engineer. 17 18 Thought I had it made and 45 years later I'm. 18 19 still working. So is Mr. Logan. 25 years later he's 19 20 working. Same place. Been there. He filled out the 20 21 22 papers. Where we come from, we're sort of country. If 21 22 23 you fill out the government papers and the government 23 24 don't come back and tell you something, you thinklyou're 24 25 okay. 25 68 ones on the site. There was tunnels, there was open pits, there was machinery on .the site, there was green briars, there was blackberry bushes, there was four ponds. There was rattlesnakes and there was a lot of danger. There was a bridge that I looked at that needed some repair. So where do.we start? MR. MARIN: Sir, I have a question. Are you an engineer? MR. GALES: Yes. MR. MARIN: Okay. Because you're talking more like an attorney, but I have engineering questions. MR. GALES: I want to answer those. MR. MARIN: Can you explain to me what is hydrated ore? MR. GALES: Okay.' There is basically on this site what we categorize as three distinct items that we deal with. Number one, topsoil. The way we deal with topsoil in any operation is you carefully take the topsoil off, you stockpile it and you conserve it because you're going to put that back on top of any pit that you may dig. The next one is the overburden. Overburden can be anything from dirt, rock, of that nature, no • • • Transcript of Proceedings 69 70 1 value. 1 2 It holds — it holds the bottom of the earth 2 3 together or the bedrock and the topsoil. _ 3 4 And then the third thing that we're looking 4 5 for is the placer gravels. 5 6 Now, in this particular site there's about 25 6 7 feet of placer gravels. This is an old ancient channel 7 8 that runs across this site. - B 9 Now, in those gravels somewhere there is some 9 10 particles of gold and that's what we're after, those 10 11 .little particles of gold. 11 12 Now, we have to shake this loose, and there's 12 13 6 inch rocks, there's 4 inch rocks, there's boulders, 13 14 there's sand and there's silts. 14- 15 We're only interested in the heavy sands and 15 16 that's high grade ore, the black sands. That's the 16 17 terminology thafs in gold mining. 17 16 MR. MARIN: So this is the hydrated ore? 1a 19 MR. GALES: Black sands. That is about 4 19 20 percent in the placer gravels. 20 21 But if you're got 25 feet of overburden, it 21 22 becomes 2 percent of what you've got to move to get to 22 23 it. 23 24 MR. MARIN: So when they got the permit,,they 24 25 ' were — it was the understanding that we're going to take 25 March 13,.2008 71 5.7 acres. So we have disturbed about 7 acres presently over the past year. We've moved about 28,000 cubic yards from the day we started, which is in April or May, until today. . So it's not near as comprehensive about the amount of yardage we've moved around. We're operating in the first initial pit area that Mr. Logan had started r operating. -1 So a question was asked what phase are we in, I guess we're in the first phase 25 years later. So that's where we are there, and it is first phase — let's change to the next one. This one. The Logan — was that the Logan?: 1 want the Logan. What 1 did here was take and divide up what he had said that he was going to do, the areas, and to see what Mr. Logan was going to do with the modem technology we have today versus what he had at that time and his penal. I come up with within a hundred thousand yards of what he says was on thls site that he was going to process. I'm at 1 million 4, he was at 1 million 5. He was going to do the first area, which was about 45,000 cubic yards in 6 months. That's a long ways from 20 cubic yards a day. And he put that in his 0 70 72 1 20 cubic yards of hydrated ore out of here a day? 1 reclamation plan of what he was going to do. 2 MR. GALES: That's right. When I looked at 2 Now — so we took that, did our analysis and 3 spent time to see if this thing was feasible. It was 3 4 this thing — MR. MARIN: And you would have to move how 4 feasible for us if the gold is there, if we can get it 5 much raw material for that? 5 out, if we can check and have a permit. 6 MR, GALES: You have to move everything above ' 6 1 went to the first meeting, met Mr. Chris, 7 asked him, I said, I'd like to see Mr. Ron Logan's 7 8 it. MR. MARIN: Which is — B permit. It wasn't available. One of the ladies said, "I MR. GALES: And he had — and we have checked 9 think it's in the back room back there in some of the old 9 10 files. I remember that I think we took all those files 10 11 it out. He talked about moving and reclaiming 50,000 11 back." I said, "Okay, I'll come back." 12 to 250,000 cubic yards of material a year, to get this 12 In the meantime, I sent Mr. Lynn Whitehead, 13 one of my geologists down and they still hadn't located 13 14 20. That's a lot of movement. That's a lot of 14 it and Mr. Logan came up with his permit. 15 work. How do you do that? That's how you do that. You 15 Now, Mr. Logan's filing system was about the 16 move it off, you bring it ba 16 same order, a bunch of boxes in the back room. So it 17 That's in item 16 of his rec plan. Clearly 17 took him a few days. And we got the permit We looked 18 states what he planned to move. 18 at it We got the reclamation plan. We looked at it. This work We can do what he said he was going to 19 1 took that and surprisingly enough did soil t 19 will 20 analysis. We have a comprehensive — lets go back to 20 do. Let's start. Where did we'start first? We. 21. where — this is what we've actually disturbed, by the . 21 22 built a bridge or we reconstruct the bridge and we 22 23 way. That's the total property. There's some areas 23 started. We started in — the ponds were;in disarray. 24 on that, and to clarify that, in the pond area there's 24 We started cleaning those. A lot of the materials that you see in the 25 about 1.75 acres, and the slope area up above is about 25 0 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 geology and stuff, so we said, well, we better get us one of those guys and we did and we got Don Olsen; We had him on the job at 6:00 that evening for his first meeting. And I'll take it — yield the floor to Don and let him take you through the rest of our project from that time. I appreciate your time. (Brief pause.) CHAIR WILSON: We will be taking a lunch break at 11:30. (Brief pause.) MR. OLSEN: Good morning, commission. My name is Don Olsen. I'm a principal with Holdrege and Kull. We're a geotechnical environmental engineering firm. We have done reclamation work on mines in Placer County, Nevada County, Amador County and a number of others that I'm not aware of because I haven't worked on all of them, but we do have an environmental group that does specialize in . that type of work As Cari had told you, I got a call in the evening about 5:00 on December 5th right after the inspection was performed by the county and the state personnel and was asked to come out immediately. I came out there. it was dark, but Lee and Frank showed me around and then got me on contract and 75 I've been working with them ever since. My first major goal was to put together an erosion and sediment control plan for the site, because we were already.told that we were going to have an abatement order issued by the state Water Quality Control Board, and that's what we did. So we produced basically four documents here. The sediment erosion control plan was dated December 28, 2007. Its this big. It has all the best management practices that they needed to implement in order to take care of any soil that might be transported off site by stones into Dry Creek. They immediately started installing that stuff before we even got this report completed based on our she visits, conversations with them, you know, on the fly, put a silt fence over here, put a fiber roll over here, put hay bales over there. Lets get this pond kind of reconfigured so that we can handle a 10 -year, 24-hour stone which is required for a Class C type of waste coming from a mining operation, which is nota hazardous waste. All it is is sand and gravels. Because all we do on this operation, which was described before, is separate out the sands that have the gold in it from all the rest of the material. 1 2 3 4 �5 6 1 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 To answer your question earlier, its not considered a hydrated — which would say you've got water F involved. Its a concentrated ore material. All of it is native and natural to the site: The placer deposit crosses the entire site, underlies everything as well as the ridges on both sides. Its a fairly extensive gold deposit. They, happen to have an 18 acre parcel that is entirely included in the permit for mining. Five acres of the parcel are on the east side of Dry Creek. The current operation is entirely on the west side of the creek, which is a 13 acre area, of which approximately 6 or 7 acres have been disturbed on that east side. In order to process materials, put haul roads in, build stockpiles for your overburden and your topsoil, and the processing plant as well as the operations that have to go on. You know, you have buildings and so forth. You have staging areas for equipment Anyway, they immediately started implementing all of these best management practices to control your sediment erosion. The next major activity for us was to put together a report of waste discharge that was required by 88 73 1 disturbed area was drying out, trying to become dry so 1 2 that we could use that in an orderly manner, try to get 2 3 the topsoil in shape. 3 4 If you'll look on this, there's probably 6 or 4 5 7 old sheds on this side of the creek. 5 6 . There's an old pit down here that — previous, 6 1 that had been worked who knows when. 7 8 There was a lot of just different things that 3 9 happened in 25 years, as you'd expect. So let's clean 9 10 the site up. Let's clean the ponds up. Let's get this 10 11 operation in a safe manner. , 11 12 We were on that trail and we were working and 12 13 December the 4th, the day before that this inspection 13 14 happened, mother nature gave me a bath on that side. 14 15 It rained'about two inches that day and the 15 16 site was very., very muddy during the day of the 16 17 inspection. There was some discrepancies. The stone 17 1B water board gave us a verystrong letter. No fines. 18 19 Said, "Guys, get your site in shape." There's a 19 20 potential. 20 21 We were not putting adverse water into any 21 22 creek. We were complying in our efforts. 22 23 So as of December the 5th, one of the things 23 24 they said, "You need a California engineer." Our firth 24 25 has an engineer, not an expertise in environmental 25 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 geology and stuff, so we said, well, we better get us one of those guys and we did and we got Don Olsen; We had him on the job at 6:00 that evening for his first meeting. And I'll take it — yield the floor to Don and let him take you through the rest of our project from that time. I appreciate your time. (Brief pause.) CHAIR WILSON: We will be taking a lunch break at 11:30. (Brief pause.) MR. OLSEN: Good morning, commission. My name is Don Olsen. I'm a principal with Holdrege and Kull. We're a geotechnical environmental engineering firm. We have done reclamation work on mines in Placer County, Nevada County, Amador County and a number of others that I'm not aware of because I haven't worked on all of them, but we do have an environmental group that does specialize in . that type of work As Cari had told you, I got a call in the evening about 5:00 on December 5th right after the inspection was performed by the county and the state personnel and was asked to come out immediately. I came out there. it was dark, but Lee and Frank showed me around and then got me on contract and 75 I've been working with them ever since. My first major goal was to put together an erosion and sediment control plan for the site, because we were already.told that we were going to have an abatement order issued by the state Water Quality Control Board, and that's what we did. So we produced basically four documents here. The sediment erosion control plan was dated December 28, 2007. Its this big. It has all the best management practices that they needed to implement in order to take care of any soil that might be transported off site by stones into Dry Creek. They immediately started installing that stuff before we even got this report completed based on our she visits, conversations with them, you know, on the fly, put a silt fence over here, put a fiber roll over here, put hay bales over there. Lets get this pond kind of reconfigured so that we can handle a 10 -year, 24-hour stone which is required for a Class C type of waste coming from a mining operation, which is nota hazardous waste. All it is is sand and gravels. Because all we do on this operation, which was described before, is separate out the sands that have the gold in it from all the rest of the material. 1 2 3 4 �5 6 1 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 To answer your question earlier, its not considered a hydrated — which would say you've got water F involved. Its a concentrated ore material. All of it is native and natural to the site: The placer deposit crosses the entire site, underlies everything as well as the ridges on both sides. Its a fairly extensive gold deposit. They, happen to have an 18 acre parcel that is entirely included in the permit for mining. Five acres of the parcel are on the east side of Dry Creek. The current operation is entirely on the west side of the creek, which is a 13 acre area, of which approximately 6 or 7 acres have been disturbed on that east side. In order to process materials, put haul roads in, build stockpiles for your overburden and your topsoil, and the processing plant as well as the operations that have to go on. You know, you have buildings and so forth. You have staging areas for equipment Anyway, they immediately started implementing all of these best management practices to control your sediment erosion. The next major activity for us was to put together a report of waste discharge that was required by 88 0 Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 , the abatement order that was issued by the state Water Quality Control Board. That's this document here. . In the document we answered questions that were of critical concern to everybody, were the ponds and the operations going to be within the hundred year floodplain for Dry Creek. So we performed a hydraulic analyses of the entire watershed and estimated or computed that the hundred year floodplain would be about 7 feet below the top of our levees. So that gave us a considerable factor of safety in that we knew that we were not going to be inundated by the hundred year flood, which could carry massive amounts of operational materials down into Dry Creek We also did a water balance analysis to be able to size the ponds and design them so that it could take into account the 10 -year, 24-hour storm amount as well as the processing waters that the plant would use and recycle back through the ponds and, again, you know, to make the operations for separating out by mechanical means the gold black sands or the gold bearing black sands from the rest of the materials in the placer deposit So we took care of that issue. They've been 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 78 working on rebuilding the levees. We were working during some pretty difficult situations. We had winter time rains coming. - We had to stop work periodically because just the operations of trying to do work can make more mess than what you're accomplishing. But we had people out there by hand, hand casting straw putting jute mat down, putting all the other things like silt fences and fiber rolls in order to contain the site. So far we haven't had any discharges into Dry Creek. Dry Creek, when it is running during storms, is a fairly — has a fairly high turbidity to it because of the natural runoff from all the area up drainage from where the site is at It cleans up fairly quickly. We've taken water samples above the site and then below the site and, you know, we're documenting that on a very frequent basis to demonstrate that during our operations, the turbidity is not increased in Dry Creek by the land — the mining operations on the site. So the report of waste discharge here also classified the waste as a Class C group waste which is sand and gravels. Its not — its very similar to what a sand and gravel operation would generate and move off the site 24 25 79 to sell. But we're taking this material, processing it and actually coming up with only about 4 percent or less of the material is this concentrated black sands with the gold in it that is then removed from the site for further processing to separate those two out to get the gold. So the report of waste discharge is the document that we prepared to — MR. NELSON: So there's no chemistry involved . with the separation out of the gold on site? MR. OLSEN: Not at all. its a complete mechanical operation. Its taking the materials, running them through some trammels, moving over the screens with conveyor belts. We take all that material, process it through and remove the black sands that have the gold in it - All the remaining materials are conveyor belted all back to one discharge point where its then again mixed together and it's no longer sands, days, gravels, cobbles. It's all mixed together. As it was taken out of the ground, it is then put back into the ground. So we have a simultaneous excavation operation that's going on with a reclamation portion of the 80 1 project 2 So they take — because you'd just be 3 ' generating too much material at any one time in order to 4 produce that 5 And just to kind of give you a sense of what 6 20 cubic yards would be, K you took an area that was 14 7 feet by 14 feet by 3 feet deep, that's about 20 cubic 8 yards. 9 As they were describing, that's about what 10 you'd get in a dump truck, okay. That's 20 acres. 11 Now, in order to produce 20 — 20 cubic yards, 12 I'm sorry. 13 In order to produce the 20 cubic yards of gold 14 bearing sands, the black sands, you're going to have to 15 generate — you're going to have to do about, say, 500 to 16 700 cubic yards a day in order to generate that. 17 MR. MARK That was my question earlier. 18 That's what I needed to know. But why wouldn'tthey put 19 that in the permit? 20 MR. OLSEN: Well, I think the permit was 21 poorly written at the time and 1 don't think anybody 22 thought about it. 23 I've written so many specs and I think I've 24 got everything nailed down and wired and somebody comes 25 up with some way to interpret something differently 89 is 0 March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings 82 83 So you're at an elevation of about 740 -some feet or 45 feet This is the eastern — or western property line, and you're up at elevations that are I think somewhere around 800, 900 — 860, okay. So this is the first pit area. So we're, working the same area that Ron Logan had started working back in 1982 Like I said, this is the pond that's dedicated for storm water runoff in a 10 -year, 24-hour storm that will allow us to keep it separate, any kind of turbidity that develops, and just by running across, you know, an undisturbed area will settle out here so that we can then discharge it into Dry Creek. We're looking at needing a permit to do that Then these other three ponds are the sedimentation ponds where — here's the plant All the materials are separated here. Any of the wash water that separates — that's used in the separation process is pumped over to this pond here, number one, and then in succession it flows to number two and to number three. And as we go to number three, we're starting to get dean water that we can then pump back to the plant site here and use in the processing process. 1 ` 81 1 1 because you left — I left a little bit of ambiguity in 1 2 my terminology or description. Ambiguity means more 2 3 interpretations, okay. 3 4 1 think for anybody to have thought that they 4 5 were going to be able to produce gold in any kind of 5 6 viable operation at 20 cubic yards as the total volume of 6 7 material moved would be — has no experience in mining or 7 8 grading operations. 8 9 Now, out of that 20 cubic yards, you're only 9 10 getting about 2 yards of this separated out black sands 10 1-1 with the gold in it, okay. 11 12 So they are not then hauling that immediately 12 13 off the site. They stockpile the black sands until they 13 14 get a reasonable amount of it to then move off site. 14 15 So they aren't running trucks up and down 15 16 every day transporting stuff off the site. 16 17 They have had vehicles bring in — and its, 17 18 you know, a very limited operation to haul equipment in 18 19 to set up this more, let's say, efficient and — well, 19 20 modem equipment for doing the mining operations. That's 20 21 22 all in place. They are not going to have to have trucks 21 22 23 moving stuff like that in and out again for years until 23 24 they are done with the whole operation. 24 25 Now, there is — to show you how this 25 82 83 So you're at an elevation of about 740 -some feet or 45 feet This is the eastern — or western property line, and you're up at elevations that are I think somewhere around 800, 900 — 860, okay. So this is the first pit area. So we're, working the same area that Ron Logan had started working back in 1982 Like I said, this is the pond that's dedicated for storm water runoff in a 10 -year, 24-hour storm that will allow us to keep it separate, any kind of turbidity that develops, and just by running across, you know, an undisturbed area will settle out here so that we can then discharge it into Dry Creek. We're looking at needing a permit to do that Then these other three ponds are the sedimentation ponds where — here's the plant All the materials are separated here. Any of the wash water that separates — that's used in the separation process is pumped over to this pond here, number one, and then in succession it flows to number two and to number three. And as we go to number three, we're starting to get dean water that we can then pump back to the plant site here and use in the processing process. 1 simultaneous excavation or cut and cover operation works 1 2 with the reclamation ongoing, this map here shows on the 2 3 far left-hand side, which is to the north, which is that 3 4 direction on the map, is the first pit. 4 5 This is operation is it's planned now. Those 5 6 are the ponds. It's been reduced from five ponds to four 6 7 ponds. There are sedimentation ponds. 7 8 We're dedicating the one that's furthest to a 9 the south, which is on the right-hand side, to contain 9 10 the 10 -year, 24-hour storm. So that water would be kept 10 11 separate from the processed water so that it can then be 11 12 discharged into the Dry Creek drainage, and its all 12 13 water that has not gone through any of the processing 13 14 areas. So we're capturing that water. 14 15 There's another map up there that will show 15 16 you that we have — we'll be placing brow ditches across 16 17 so — across the upslope side of the project which is on 17 18 the — if you go to the bottom, you know, this down side, 18 19 that's the high area in elevation. 19 20 As you go towards the top of the plan, that's 20 21 where Dry Creek is and its not easy to see, but maybe 1 21 22 can — okay. 22 23 Dry Creek runs — this is the north side of 23 24 the property and it comes in right there and it goes off 24 25 the property right ght there. 25 84 So it's a very much more modem operation as far as a mining approach from what Ron was doing in the beginning, although it's pretty much the same thing. It's just - MR. MARIN: How long ago were these ponds established? • MR. OLSEN: We're in the process right now of doing these. Now, on the earlier diagram there was six ponds here. This pond right here has been constructed — we took two of the ponds and made them into one. We're in the process, as soon as the weather permits, of going down from north to south and continue to reconstruct all of these. Right now the pond levees on this eastern side are too soft to get heavy equipment on without causing them to fail. Because they weren't constructed as to how we're doing these and we're actually compacting it, putting them in at lifts that are compactible by heavy equipment, not just like the old operation of just dumping dirt, much like the levees along Sacramento and all the other rivers were done years ago where they just dredged stuff out and dumped it on the ground. • • Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 in it, which means it's got clay and silt. And when it drops out, then the water gets clearer and we can now reuse it. Water that may permeate out the bottom - although your silt and clays, when they deposit out, kind of make a film, and it gets fairly thick, that's relatively a low permeable material. So most of water, you know, we want to capture and use back in the process of the mining operation. MS. LAMBERT: Can I ask how long has that . processing plant been there in and operating in this manner? MR. OLSEN: Well, the current processing plant has -1 don't - I would have to defer that to Frank and Lee because 1 came in after portions of a were already there. MS. LAMBERT: Recent? MR. OLSEN: Yeah, recent. I would say, you know, since - when they came on board in I guess it was March of 2007. MS. LAMBERT: Almost. So just in the last year. MR. OLSEN: Right But there was already existing mining equipment there that Ron Logan had been using for years, as well as other equipment like large 87 equipment like dozers, you know, big earth moving equipment, loaders, you know, backhoes. So it was set up to be able to move what he originally wanted to do to process enough materials to generate originally 80 cubic yards of what we call high grade black sands with the gold in it to an off site facility where they would then separate those. Then it was back down to 20 cubic yards of process material. You know, thats the tens that I think everybody is forgetting and that was never an issue until just recently. But back in the days when they did the original permits, to - there's another, diagram I want to show you back on one of Ron Logan's original reclamation plans, pictures, that almost make it a ludicrous concept to think that they could do this at 20 yards total. MR-MARIN: So when did the term "native materiae come into the picture here? MR. OLSEN: Well, "native material" is a common description for anything that's naturally on your site. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B" 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Afl of the materials, including the gold, are native materials to the site. MR. MARIN: Topsoil also? MR. OLSEN: Topsoil is native to the site. 88 Nobody brought it in. It's a natural development of the soils on the site. Its a - the site had the placer deposits which were channel or river deposits that were, you know - deposited deposited there, you know, many millions of years ago. You have the tuscan formation that overlies that, which is your volcanic type materials and cemented sandstones and so on, so forth. And all of that is native. 11 That in the creek has been eroded away, exposing the New Era formation which has - which are the placer deposits. This is one of the richest placer deposits in California. Its surprising that it got forgotten or left behind or maybe back in the days of the mining of the 49ers and later on in the 1890s and early 1900s, you know, people forgot about it 1 mean, there's - I've heard stories about, believe it or not, that there's been people who have come up with the concepts to take all of the city of Oroville and move it off of their lands because there's so much gold in the placer in the cobble deposits underneath Oroville that have never been mined, okay. But it's not feasible. Its going to - you know, that can't be done. 85 1 It never was compacted, or most of them 4 1 2 weren't, and thats why a lot of our levees have failed 2 3 because you get high waters. The water goes through them 3 4 and they start, you know, having slope failures and then 4 5 the whole thing goes. 5 6 So what we're doing is we're rebuilding the 6 7 levees by actually taking the on site materials and we're 7 8 compacting it in place so we have a good stable structure 8 9 there from a hydraulic standpoint 9 10 And also we're making sure that the top of the 10 11 levee is at the elevation that it is minimum elevation 11 12 difference, and it gets to be more of a difference as you 12 13 go from the north to the south. 13 14 But at the bridge area right here, we 14 15 calculated that the hundred year floodplain would be 15 16 about 7 feet lower than what the closest top of the levy 16 17 is. 17 18 But the creek drops about 23 feet from the 18 19 north to the south end. So as we go down this direction, 19 20 by the time you get to this levy, its way, way above. 20 21 MR MARIN: Do these ponds have liners? 21 22 MR. OLSEN: No. These are just sedimentation 22 23 ponds. There's not a need to line them because there's 23 24 no chemicals that are used. 24 25 Its just wash water thats got some turbidity 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 in it, which means it's got clay and silt. And when it drops out, then the water gets clearer and we can now reuse it. Water that may permeate out the bottom - although your silt and clays, when they deposit out, kind of make a film, and it gets fairly thick, that's relatively a low permeable material. So most of water, you know, we want to capture and use back in the process of the mining operation. MS. LAMBERT: Can I ask how long has that . processing plant been there in and operating in this manner? MR. OLSEN: Well, the current processing plant has -1 don't - I would have to defer that to Frank and Lee because 1 came in after portions of a were already there. MS. LAMBERT: Recent? MR. OLSEN: Yeah, recent. I would say, you know, since - when they came on board in I guess it was March of 2007. MS. LAMBERT: Almost. So just in the last year. MR. OLSEN: Right But there was already existing mining equipment there that Ron Logan had been using for years, as well as other equipment like large 87 equipment like dozers, you know, big earth moving equipment, loaders, you know, backhoes. So it was set up to be able to move what he originally wanted to do to process enough materials to generate originally 80 cubic yards of what we call high grade black sands with the gold in it to an off site facility where they would then separate those. Then it was back down to 20 cubic yards of process material. You know, thats the tens that I think everybody is forgetting and that was never an issue until just recently. But back in the days when they did the original permits, to - there's another, diagram I want to show you back on one of Ron Logan's original reclamation plans, pictures, that almost make it a ludicrous concept to think that they could do this at 20 yards total. MR-MARIN: So when did the term "native materiae come into the picture here? MR. OLSEN: Well, "native material" is a common description for anything that's naturally on your site. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B" 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Afl of the materials, including the gold, are native materials to the site. MR. MARIN: Topsoil also? MR. OLSEN: Topsoil is native to the site. 88 Nobody brought it in. It's a natural development of the soils on the site. Its a - the site had the placer deposits which were channel or river deposits that were, you know - deposited deposited there, you know, many millions of years ago. You have the tuscan formation that overlies that, which is your volcanic type materials and cemented sandstones and so on, so forth. And all of that is native. 11 That in the creek has been eroded away, exposing the New Era formation which has - which are the placer deposits. This is one of the richest placer deposits in California. Its surprising that it got forgotten or left behind or maybe back in the days of the mining of the 49ers and later on in the 1890s and early 1900s, you know, people forgot about it 1 mean, there's - I've heard stories about, believe it or not, that there's been people who have come up with the concepts to take all of the city of Oroville and move it off of their lands because there's so much gold in the placer in the cobble deposits underneath Oroville that have never been mined, okay. But it's not feasible. Its going to - you know, that can't be done. • �i March 13; 2008 89 91 This is, again, one of those deposits that has 1 , reclaimed materials. kind of in a remote area that never got mined, and 2 MR. MARIN:. Are the ponds going to be s what Ron discovered — well, it got mined early 3 backfilled? but it was a type of underground mining operation 4 MR. OLSEN: The ponds will then be actually reas now we're looking at a surface mining or cut and 5 regraded. They will be backfilled. er approach. [8r,e 6 And there's the final grading plan, if we can Now, getting back to the simultaneous 7 pull that up. It looks like this. So you don't see any amation and cut and cover operation, cut and cover ' 8 evidence of the ponds. So we're re-establishing the means that we're going to excavate and we're going 9 _ original grades. ut stuff back in. 10 The continuous or solid ,lines are the proposed It,doesn't mean that iYs ahuge extensive11 final grading plan grades and the dash lines are what it en pit like, you know, the Anaconda mine in Arizona 12 was before any mining activities took place. ere they take, you know; and. build a huge pit in the 13 So you can see it's fairly dose. If you were 14 ground and pulling copper out, okay. And then the hole 14 to compare elevation contour values, you know, they are 15 is left because they are exporting all of that off the 15 fairly dose to what it was before. 16 Once this has been completely vegetated, you 16 site. 11 wouldn't even be able to tell that that was a 17 Whereas here we're taking the material, probably 18 processing it and 96 percent of the material goes back 18 mining operation. 19 into the hole in the ground. 19 CHAIR WILSON: Mr. Olsen, you'll have to 20 So as you dig, you're now placing that 20 excuse us. We're going to have to take a break right 21 material back into the previous pit location. 21 now. 22 So the first pit location is right there. So 22 MR. OLSEN: Okay. 23 can you go to the next one? 23 CHAIR WILSON: We will resume at 12:45 and you 24 Okay. Now, it is showing green here in that 24 will have — you still have the floor. 25 that has been reclaimed. 25 MR. OLSEN: Okay. Thank you. I've got a 90 92 1 The next area of operation is here, so we're 1 question — the first 22 pages of the photos labeled 1997 2 taking this material and putting it back over here as 2 to 2008 are operations before March, 2007. 1977, I'm 3 well as the material that was originally excavated here, 3 sorry through 2008. 4 which part of that -- because we used to build the levees 4 (Brief break.) 5 and other features on the site to control drainage and 5 CHAIR WILSON: Call the meeting back to order, 6 for the processing of the ores and, you know, be able to 6 please. 7 desilt the water so we can reuse it again. 7 Mr. Olsen, you have the floor, so you may 8 Okay. When this area has been depleted, then 8 continue. 9 we go to the next area which is over here. So now a 9 MR. OLSEN: Okay. I'll wrap this up quickly 10 portion of that area starts being reclaimed immediately. 10 here. 11 So this is an ongoing operation. 11 There were two additional documents that I 12So we're trying to keep roughly one to two 12 want to make sure you're aware of., 13 acres of area disturbed at any one time that is part 13 We put together the storm water pollution 14 being reclaimed and part being excavated. 14 prevention plan which is supplemental to the erosion and' 15 And then as we move on to the next pit, which 15 sediment control plan that we did initially, and it 16 is right here. This is pit number 3. You can see that 1 16 covers a lot of the site's operations and so on, so 17 and 2 are fully — 2 is reclaimed and portions of 3 are 17 forth. 18 being reclaimed and — or this has actually jumped all 18 So that document was produced and dated March 19 the way to pit number 4 here. 20 So as march across the site, we finally 19 1 st of 2008. 20 And then finally we had submitted a financial you 21 get to pit number 5, and we're excavating and as you can 21 assurance estimate for the site and we were asked to 22 see, the others are now colored green. 22 revise it by the county staff and we've done'so. 23 Then eventually when pit 5 is done, we're 23' We've taken, their valuable input and did so 24 going to take all the materials that are left that's in 24, and that is this document right here. It shows the 25 the pond areas and move them into the pit number 5 as 25 entire site developed where there's like 9 sheets — or 92 • Transcript of Proceedings • • March 13, 2008 93 95 1 11 sheets in here that will take you through showing how 1 MR. WILL: And I will 2 the excavate and simultaneously reclaim each of the pits 2 MR. NELSON: I mean, why are we going through 3 all the way to the end. 3 all this disagreement when it seems to me like you're 4 MR. NELSON: Has staff seen any of that? 4 sort of agreeing with us in the sense that you're 5 MR. OLSEN: Yes. 5 starting to collect this information to kind of make it 6 MR. NELSON: They have? 6 right, based on what we see that's going on out there 7 MR. OLSEN: The financial assurance plan was 7 right now. e just finished and that's dated March 11, which they'll B MR. OLSEN: Well, let me just point out that 9 get a copy of today. 9 I'm in agreement, I think we all are, that we want to 10 MR. NELSON: Okay. l0 have an updated, you know, approach to this mining 11 MR. OLSEN: We weren't able to get it in 11 operation, you know. 12 yesterday. 12 And early on it was a Tittle, you know, not - 13 MR. NELSON: Can I ask you a question? Are 13 quite as well defined. A lot of the reporting 14 you finished? 14 requirements for Mr. Logan were not enacted until 10 15 MR. OLSEN: No. 15 years after, somewhere in the early '90s, for him to have 16 MR. NELSON: You're not finished, okay. 1 16 to do — to submit, from what 1 understand, reports of 17 want to ask you a question at some point in time. 17 his operations. 18 Well, it seems to me that you're in the 1s Now, had the county been out there and did 19 process —with all of the documentation that we have in 19 their annual reviews — and actually, they were supposed 20 front of us, it almost looks as if you - well, you're at 20 to make three reviews or site visits per year which they 21 least a good portion of the way toward writing that 21 never did, he would have been notified that, "Hey, 22 reclamation plan. 22 where's your annual report, we haven't seen one, you're 23 You probably have already written the plan, 23 out of compliance; and he would have gone, "Oh, duh, 24 only it's in the form of four documents here. 24 I'll get that to you; but it never happened for 25 25 MR. OLSEN: Well — 25 years. . 94 96 1 MR. NELSON: And I'm just saying that you're 1 Okay. So we're in the process of now trying 2 sort of heading into that same direction that staff is 2 to get everything up to speed so everybody is happy and 3 suggesting that you go. 3 we can have a good, safe environmentally sound project 4 MR. OLSEN: Well, that's correct But all 4 And so far we haven t, you know, disturbed the 5 we've done is we've revised the original Logan plan. 5 creek. We haven't put any, you know, sediments into the 6 It's still pretty much his plan as to how to mind the 6 creek that have caused anybody any damages. We have, you 7 site and reclaim the site. 7 know, contained it 8 MR. NELSON: I think that's probably what we 8 We're in the operations of now getting things 9 want in a reclamation plan, only we want something that's 9 up to probably better site condition than you find at 10 a little more up to date, given what's going on there 10 most mines throughout the country. 11 now. 11 , MR. NELSON: And 1 see that you're on your way 12 And, you know, there's a whole process that 12 to compliance right now and I see that a lot of those 13 goes on here where we — and, you know, I don't see how 13 steps that — we call them violations, you want to call 14 you can really accept the fad that we're dealing with a 14 them what you can. . • 15 situation of no impact on the environment 15 1 mean, when you have a lot of activity in a 16 You can't really expect that we're still in a 16 mine, it is hard to write a report on it so that a lot 17 negative declaration state, and you really can't expect 17 of the years that have gone by,1 can sort of understand 1B that we're still in a $3,000 performance bond, and you've 18 those. 19 proven that by coming out with the documentation you have 19 What I — what we need to deal with is the 20 in front of us. 20 • scale of change that's occurred over the last six to 21 So it sounds like you're starting on the way 21 eight months and that's realty what triggered this whole 22 to exactly where we want you to go, which is compliance, 22 thing. 23 or at least that's what we're talkingabout today. . 23 MR. OLSEN: Okay. That's what I wanted to 24 You got plenty of time to respond to my 24 address right now. 25 And you have a document here that's called New 25 comments. 93 • Transcript of Proceedings March 13., 2008 • 0 97 99 1 Era Mine pictorial documentation, March 13,2008. 1 operation. 2 In this we have pictures that were taken prior 2 MR. OLSEN: Well, you look at the equipment 3 to North Continental Mine Land and Timber's involvement 3 that he has — 4 with the project to show you what Mr. Logan's operation 4 MR. NELSON: And it wasn't as big an operation 5 was, and it was not a small operation by any means. S. until recently. 6 If you go to — and I don't know how many 6 MR. OLSEN: No. This was a fairly good-sized 7 pages back, but there's a picture here, and these 7 operation. 8 pictures didn't come out well. Otherwise, we would have 8 It was no little hobby like lets go out and 9 had them up here on Power Point, but they just didn't 9 you and Igo do gold mining on the weekend. i 0 tum out well because these are old photographs. 10 This is something that he's operating year 11 But there's a picture of D 8, okay. You don't 11 round. I mean, that's not cheap equipment to get out 12 bring something out that small, you know, to move only 20 12 there. 13 cubic yards of dirt in a day. There's excavators that 13 Now, what they've got out there now is a lot 14 were out there. 14 more sophisticated and more costly, but things have 15 If you go back to where you can actually see 15 changed, you know, over the times, you know, and so now 16 his mining operations, it shows all these pieces of 16 the operation is being kicked up. 17 equipment where he's, you know, processing the raw ore in 17 But any time back then he could have stepped 18 order to separate the black sands with the gold in it out 18 it all the way up to what it is now, but the price of 19 of it 19 gold wasn't over a thousand dollars an ounce, either. 20 There's a big trammel on another page, and 20 So it wasn't viably economical to do that, and 21 that's one of the devices that you use to separate the 21 that's what happens typically in a mining operation like 22 materials out Thafs huge. Its no little thing. Its 22 this. 23 not going out and just running some water through a 23 Its a nonrenewable commodity thafs tied to 24 sluice box like its a hobby. 24 the marketplace, and, you know, so he had to scale his 25 This was a viable operation. The operation 25 operation for what was viable at the time. 98 100 1 ebbed and flowed as the cost or the price of gold did. 1 Now, you look at these pictures and these are 2 So as gold prices went up, he went up with his 2 old pictures from that time and it shows all this 3 operations. 3 equipment out there. 4 As gold prices went down, he went down, and 4 And, again, it's not a hobby operation. You 5 that happened several times throughout the history of 5 and I couldn't afford to just, you know, go out there and 6 this site since he started working on it back in 1981. 6 set something up like that if it was. 7 MR. NELSON: Do you really think that we're 7 MR. LELAND: Do you have the capacities of 8 supposed to believe that the board thought that we were 8, these various trammels and things? 9 going to have a scale operation like this and that they 9 1 mean, I see your condusion that this shows 10 were going to post an absolutely — a negative 10 that the scale matched your interpretation of the use 11 declaration, no significant effect on the environment and i 1 . permit. 12 they were going to post a $3,000 bond for the amount of 12 But me looking at this, I can't tell if this 13 work that's — 13 is really high capacity equipment or low capacity. 14 MR. OLSEN: They agreed to that. 14 MR. OLSEN: This is fairly high capacity 15 MR. NELSON: 1 don't think so. 15 equipment. 16 MR. OLSEN: Well, see, this was done back in 16 His reclamation plan said that it allowed him 17 1981, and what people think today can be a lot different 17 to mine 50,000 to 250,000. yards a year, okay. 18 than what they thought then, but that's what they asked 18 In the reclamation plan, he gives a typical 19 him to do. 19 size area that he would be mining of about 200 by 300 by 20 Now, I can't change that. 1 can't read their 20 50 feet, okay. 21 minds. 1 wasn't around then to do that, but that's what 21 That would generate about a hundred thousand 22 they -asked — 22 cubic yards. That falls well, within the 50,000 to 23 NIR. NELSON: Well, the documentation that 1 23 250,000 that the reclamation plan dearly states. 24 read was — well, I'm just — just the way I interpreted 24 And the out -product was 20 cubic yards per day 25 it is they didn'tsee that it was going to be a big 125 - of processed ore with the gold in it that would be 91 0 Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 11 0 101 103 1 exported off site — 1 And, you know, you're talking about a dump 2 MR. MARIN: It doesn't say that. Wait a 2 truck worth of dirt, okay. That's it. That's 20 cubic 3 minute, sir. It doesn't say that. MR. LELAND: The way I read the permit, it 3 yards. 4 You can't move and do much with that kind of 4 5 says the mining operation will be limited to 20 yards a 5 operation limitations and you see the kind of equipment 6 that he had out there. You wouldn't need anything but 6 day. 7 MR. OLSEN: It also says — 7 maybe just a backhoe to do that kind of thing. You 8 MR. LELAND: And reclamation — I mean, 1 8 wouldn't need dozers and loaders and all this other 9 don't want to argue with you, I was just asking the 9 processing equipment. 10 question about the capacities of this equipment 10 You'd be done in probably a half an hour 11 MR. OLSEN: The capacity of the equipment 11 running 20 yards through an operation on a day that he 12 there in my opinion would generate, you know, the 50,000 12 had out there, 20 yards. 13 MS. LAMBERT: Before he leaves, I want to ask 13 to 250,000. 14 He couldprobably come in maybe dose to the 14 a question. 15 50,000 obviously, you know, or if he was running that 15 MR. GALES: But the size of the other 16 thing, you know, full blast. 16 equipment, to answer your question, the existing trammel 17 But the reclamation plan here does state on 17 and the trammel before those were larger. 18 page 15 that has been marked, you know, by the county 18 The output of your plant is how much you can 19 here as a document, it says that — it says, "Operations 19 put in it. And if the trammel is larger, you put more 20 will be," and it's checked off, "50,000 to 250,000 tons 20 material in it per hour, per second or per day. 21 of cubic yards per year." 21 We actually have put this trammel on the same 22 MR. LELAND: But it also says 80 yards a day, 22 foundation as the original trammel was there in March of 23 2007 and we have pictures to validate that 23 so — 24 MR. OLSEN: That's — 24 MR. LELAND: Okay. Well, let me ask. So, 25 MR. LELAND: — you cant - 25 first of all, what is a trammel? 102 104 1 MR. OLSEN: — processed material. 1 1 can see it but I don! know what it does or 2 MR. LELAND: — reconcile the math. Neither 2 how it works. 3 of those specify whether it's processed material or — 3 MR. GALES: Its like a big rotary barrel with 4 MR. OLSEN: That's why it was — there's 4 some chains in it and you put water in it It's like 5 putting your clothes in a washing machine and washing the 5 ambiguity in it. 6 But anybody who has done any kind — this was 6 gold out 7 poorly written. It should have been stated as processed 7 MR. OLSEN: Exactly. Here's the trammel. 8 material, then we wouldn't even be here. 8 MR. LELAND: I see the photograph of it 9 Because that's the whole contention that the 9 MR. GALES: It rotates around, you inject 10 county staff has is that, "Well, he can only operate and 10 water in k, and it's like the tub in your washer. They 11 disturb 20 cubic yards a day." 11 are washing the rocks, you're washing to get the dirt 12 There's no way in this world that you can do a 12 out 13 mining operation with only moving 20 cubic yards a day, 13 \ What we're after is washing to get the fine 14 even with a high value commodity like gold. 14 materials out It takes so much energy and so much 15 So for that to be their interpretation is 15 turns. 16 verging on really unreasonable as well as ludicrous. 16 You do it slowly so that you get all of the 17 MR. LELAND: How would a Planning Commission 17 rocks all cleaned, get it fined off. When it comes out 18 — I sympathize with planning commissioners because I'm 18 the end, you have clean rocks going one way, sand and 19 one and I don't know all that stuff and I don't know what 19 silts going another way. 20 the economically viable scale of a mining operation is. 20 MR. LELAND: Are you familiar with the 21 1 will after today, but I certainly — 21 capacity of this trammel photographed? 22 MR. OLSEN: Well, you can think in terms of 20 22 MR. GALES: This one here? That trammel 23 cubic yards like what was described before as an area 23 probably would be a hundred, 150 cubic yards per hour. 24 about 14 feet by 14 feet by 3 feet Its not very big. 24 It would have a capacity of a thousand, 1,500 cubic yards 25 It's smaller than most homes are, okay. 25 per day with adequate water. 95 Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 105 107 1 MR. LELAND: Thanks. 1 And we're being conservative when we're saying 2 MR. OLSEN: Well, that basically concludes 2 the whole site. Not the whole site has to be reclaimed 3 what I had to offer. Oh, you had a question. had 3 right now. 4 MS. LAMBERT: Right You had mentioned, 1 4 But if they did, it would be $267,000, of 5 believe, earlier that you covered about 7 acres when you 5 which they are willing to put up right now in order to be 6 were about the different steps? 6 able to operate. 7 MR. OLSEN: Yes. 7 The — as we cut and cover and reclaim' B MS. LAMBERT: 7 acres in the last year? 8 simultaneously, being the cover portion of it, you know 9 MR. OLSEN: Correct. Well, no. Actually, 9 that significantly reduces the cost of the reclamation 10 some of it was disturbed prior to them being there. to project because we're doing it as we go. 11 So they probably disturbed maybe another — 11' At the end, you know. -we'll be planting all 12 say if it was 7 total, it was probably already — three 12 these trees. There will be, you know, a hydroseed mix of 13 or four was already disturbed, because there was ponds in 13 natural native vegetation out there. 14 place. 14 1So if you've ever looked at like portions, 15 They came in and started to — you know, 15 say, like Neil Road land fill which is, you know, just 16 another 3 acres got included. 16 out of town here, and that's a land fill that I've worked 17 MS. LAMBERT: So how long would you estimate 17 a lot on, if you didn't know it was a land fill and if 18 . its going to take before you've completed the 18 acres 18 you're not looking at the actual open face which you see 19 to that fifth step or whatever you called it? 19 from this side, it's hard to tell until you're right up 20 MR. OLSEN: They plan to be done in 2013. The 20 there that's it's a land fill because of. the way they 21 whole site would be fully reclaimed and there would be no 21 construct them, and you don't really know that until you 22 more operations. 22 get close enough to seethe gas extraction pipes which 23 MS. LAMBERT: Finished mining and the 23 will eventually be removed. And then it becomes more 24 like, know, a natural terrain. 24 reclamation plan? you 25 MR. OLSEN: Yes. So everything would be 25 So this is not even going to have that much p 106 108 1 trouble. This will be able to be contoured pretty much 1 totally — 2 MS. LAMBERT: So 2013? 2 the way it is, you know, before they started any 3 MR. OLSEN: Yes, 2013. So its going to be 3 operations back in 1981 or'82. 4 reclaimed as they go. 4 And, you know, give it some years for the 5 There will be a lot of inspections by, you 5 vegetation to take hold and I bet nobody would notice 6 know, the various agencies that are involved, you know, 6 it's a land fill — or a mining operation. Are there any 7 and we've got a plan to get us there; and the plan is 7 more questions? 8 just basically a revision of what Mr. Logan was planning B MR. NELSON: There probably will be, but let's 9 to do. 9 move forward. 10 He had five or six pits. That's the same as 1'0 1 still dorA-know what the difference is 11 • we, have. They are going to mine the same depth. The 11 between your — it seems to me that you've — if you 12 configurations of the ponds have been changed to improve 12 haven't written the plan, you're coming really close 10 13 them so that we can make sure we control rainfall like 13 writing a plan already. 14 the 10 -year, 24-hour storm which is required by the 14 , I MR. OLSEN: Well, a lot of what we put 15 • regulations, as well as all the operation's waters. 15 together in the financial assurance document and the 16, MS. LAMBERT: What do you think the financial 16 report of waste discharge are asking for things that end 17 assurance would be today? ' 17 up in your reclamation plan. 18 MR. OLSEN: Well, if you did the entire site 16 So some of those things — you know, like the 19 right now, the entire site we estimated to be about 19 financial assurance plan, I didn't need to put everything 20 267,000. 20 in there: but it was asked of us by county staff, you 21 The original estimate of 24,000 was — I think 21 know, we want to see, you know, the reclamation or how 22 it was not intended to be everything.done right now, and 22 the site is going to be operated and reclaimed. 23 this financial assurance mechanism is if the operations 23 So we produced that and that's pretty much final 24 fell apart and somebody like the county had to come in 24 going to be verbatim taken and put into the • 25 and take it over and do the whole site. 25 reclamation plan. So a lot of it is there. • • Transcript of Proceedings 109 111 1 Well, anyway — I'm sorry. Maybe I'm wrong °1 allows him to mine an 18 acre site. It describes some 2 , conditions imposed upon that approval. 2 about that, so - anyway. 3 Those documents have a lot of stuff in it that 3 Your question earlier, or someone's question 4 is getting us there. °4_ earlier with regard to what the Planning Commission may • 5 MR. GALES: One of the requirements with the 5or may not have known at the time that the permit was 6 storm water board is that you update yearly your site, 6 approved — I think in answer to that, it's relevant to , 7 show drawings what you progress, what you didn't 7 note that the process by which this permit was approved you 8 was somewhat contentious and went through two years of B progress. 9 This is what we were at as of this year. Next L9 various hearings and other things of that nature. 10 year there will be an updated stone water report come out 10 It was vetted very, very thoroughly and I 11 to the county, to the storm water board. That's part of 11 think therefore, there should tie at least implicit in 12 the process. 12 that a recognition that the Planning Commission knew what 13 MR. NELSON: Isn't that what we want you to do 13 it was doing when it approved the permit 14 The permit says — and I guess we could boil 19 here? - 15 MR. GALES: That's an updated stone water 15 this all down to the permit condition, condition of 16 approval number 21 says, "Mining operations to be limited 16 report. 17 MR. NELSON: But he's going no, you're going 11 to a maximum of 20 cubic yards per day with subsequent 18 review by the Planning. Commission for proposed expansion 18 yes, so — 19 MR. WILL: My name is Blair Will. I'm an 19 to Phase 2." . 20 attorney with Scharff, Brady and ending in Sacramento. 20 It's conceivable that there's some ambiguity 21 I'm a SMARA specialist and land use litigation specialist 21 there with regard to what the mining. permit really meant 22 and work on lots of mines, lots of mining litigation and 22 condition of approval number 21, but I think its worth 23 ' things of that nature. 23 noting that at least in the context of the approval of 24 I'm going to start out by just saying that 24 surface mining operations, the reclamation plan is , 25 we've heard a lot about the mine and a lot about 25 _ equally an entitlement as the permit is. 110 112 1 historical documents and photographs, and things like 1 And so we have mining permit we have a 2 that 2 reclamation plan. Both are subject to approval by the 3 1 five in a world of statutes and regulations. y 3 Planning Commission and, as I said, it was a two-year ; 4 We have a word for what we call this kind of stuff in the 4 process. Therefore, presumably the reclamation plan .was 5 business. I'm sure you're familiar with it It's called, 5 also thoroughly vetted by the Planning Commission. At 6 entitlement 6. _ least, I hope that they did look at it - 7 Once you have an entitlement, it entitles you 7 And if you look at that and 'rf you look at B to take certain actions and to engage in certain 8 item number = excuse me, number 16, Ron Logan and has 9 activities. 9 checked "operation will be 50 to 250,000 cubic yards per .. 10 For the purposes of operating a mining 10 year." 11 operation, the law requires that you havea permit that 11 It also says that his total maximum depth is 12 you have a rec plan, a reclamation plan, which is a SMARA 12 going to be 100 feet That's a pretty substantial . 13 requirement .It's also a requirement under Chapter 13 of 13 operation, and so I think when you take those two 14 the Butte County code, but Butte County code, as in most 14 together, with the recognition of the economic realities 15 counties, the surface mining ordinances usually are taken 15 with regard to mining only 20 cubic yards per day, its 16 basically wholesale from the SMARA state law. 16. fairly dear that it was intended to be 250,000 — up to. 17 1 haven'tseen any substantial differences 11 250,000 tons moved on the site, disturbed,, and 20 cubic 18 between Chapter 13 and Butte County code and SMARA law on 1B yards of finished product or at least product ready for 19 the final processing off site to be removed per day. 19 the state level. 20 So we have to have a permit, we have to have a 20— - So we've gone through a lot of discussion 21 rec plan and we have to have financial assurances. Those, n this room, but I think the only way that 22 are the three things that we have to have to have a reconcile those two things is to recognize that 23 mining operation. L3theup to 250,000 tons per year was a disturbed 24 With regard to the New Era Mine, we have a ecognizing the size of the operation. that Ron 25 permit The permit was issued to Ron Logan in 1981. It s proposing, and a hundred foot maximum depth, 97 1] Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 113 115 , 1 and that the 20 cubic yards per day was what he was going . 1 that — 2 to take off the site and that was going to be his 2 . MR. WILL: — my presentation here, why are we 3 product 3 here? 4 Also, I think it's important to also discuss 4 MR. NELSON: — once we — 5 the concept of phasing. In the current world of SMARA R 5 MR. WILL: We're here — 6 . law, phasing means a certain thing with regard to 6 MR. NELSON: —.we're not tied to this, then 7 reclamation plans. Here this is not -- it did not mean a phase its just a bunch of — B . MR: WILL: We're here because the county 8 9 with regard to mining operations. What it meant was if 9 issued an order against the mine. 10 I, Ron Logan, go out and I find that the value of this 10 And if the county had not ordered an issue 11 raw commodity that I'm going to move off at 20 cubic 11 (sic) against the mine alleging violations, we would not 12 yards per day does not substantially support the economic 12 be here, because North Continent is, was and is prepared 13 viability of this operation, I will then go back to the 13 to operate within the entitlements granted to them by 14 Planning Commission and 1 will ask for Phase 2, and phase 14 this body in 1982. 15 2 will be BO cubic yards per day. 15 MS. LAMBERT: May I interrupt and ask — 16 As it turns out, 20 cubic yards is a 16 MR. WILL: Yes. 17 substantial amount to be moved off site every day and is 17 MS. LAMBERT: I think you indicated there are 18 an economically viable amount 18 three things you need. You -need a permit you need a 19 North Continent is not proposing to increase 19 reclamation plan, you need an assurance figure. 20 daily output off site more than the 20 cubic yards 20 MR. WILL: Okay. 21 clearly and expressly entitled for them under their 21 MS. LAMBERT: And I think the fourth one is 22 permit 22 that you need to abide by the conditions. 23 You asked about the reclamation plan. I would 23 MR. WILL Right. And we — 24 say that•in this situation the reclamation plan is 24 MS. LAMBERT: Follow all of the things,that 25 absolutely what the entitlement as it exists today is, 25 were in there, and if that hasn't happened, then I think 114 116 1 and it is one which is not — there is no amendment or no 1 we have a problem. That's why we're here. 2 revision, no changes being requested by North Continent 2 MR. WILL: All right Well, if you want to 3 with regard to the existing reclamation plan. 3. talk about that let's talk about that. 4 • North Continent is fully willing to live 4 MS. LAMBERT: And on both sides. I'm not just 5 within all of the limitations and the conditions set 5 — there were no inspections, but there were no reports 6 forth in the reclamation plan. 6 and — 7 So under those circumstances, there's no 7 MR. WILL: Right. Well, yeah. There were no 6 reason for there to be an amended or revised reclamation 8 inspections. 9 MS. LAMBERT: — when it was no longer in 9 plan. 10 MR. NELSON: Then why did we go through all 10 operation. 11 the pfle of stuff that I'm looking at? 11 MR. WILL: There were no inspections. Butte 12 MR. WILL:' Because we wanted to demonstrate to 12County — 13 you that we're trying to be good citizens and we're 13 MS. LAMBERT: I understand that. 14 trying to do the right thing. 14 MR. WILL: — whoever it is, the Department of 15 MR. NELSON: But you don't have to do the 15 Public Works or DDS or whoever it is,, is the lead SMARA 16 right if you're not — I mean, all you're doing is 16 agency. 17 basically you're doing — you're collecting the 17 MS. LAMBERT: Right But you also — 18 information and saying, "Our permit doesn't say we have 18 MR. WILL And I think it's worth noting — 19 to do anything after this whole process is over. We just 19 THE REPORTER: Can we have one at a time, 20 generated a bunch of paper her:." 20 please. 21 MR. WILL: Well, I would agree with you there. 21 MR. WILL: Sorry.. 22 1 would say, "Why are we here?" 22 MS. LAMBERT: I'm sorry. 23 1 mean, that was going to kind of be the tone 23 MR. WILL: Go ahead. 24 of my discussion here and — 24 MS. LAMBERT: I think there's also 25 MR. NELSON: Well, what you're telling me is 1125 responsibilities on both sides. • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WILL' Well, see, there I don't agree with you. What 1 would say in that context is if you look at the permit and if you look at page 1, item number 3, it does contemplate that a lien on the property or portion thereof would be satisfactory for meeting the financial assurance requirements under SMARA. MS. LAMBERT: Did that happen? Was there a lien placed — MR. WILL Well, there's some — MS. LAMBERT: — on the property? MR. WILL: There's some problem here because we've been having some difficulty with records being retrieved by the county and so — MS. LAMBERT: Does. the operator have a record of whether he has a lien on his property? MR. WILL: I'm not aware of that. I think the answer is to that question is yes. MS. LAMBERT: So he would know. MR. WILL Yes. MS. LAMBERT: If I had a lien on my property,.. I would know. MR. WILL Yes. And we're hopeful that he'll be able to testify here very shortly. MS. LAMBERT: So, I mean, that's the type of 119 questions that bring us here. MR. WILL: Well, yeah. But my colleague, John, just made an important point If you have a lien on someone's property, you may have a right to place a lien, but you dont actually lien the property until you have some kind of debtor default which you want to be reimbursed. So it may be that that's why there's no lien actually recorded on the county's side. MR. LELAND: Well, I'm looking at the permit, July 9th, '82, number 5 says, "Submit a reclamation performance bond in the amount of $3,000." MR.WILL In subsequent communications between the county and Mr. Logan, he took issue with that, and so we believe or at least he has indicated that the county agreed to impose the language here under item number 3. But in any case, if I might, North Continent took over the operation in March of last year and they have filed financial assurance with the county or are in the process of doing that So at most — we have a whole litany of violations the county has thrown up against North Continent At most what we have is a deficiency with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 regard to the financial assurances, a deficiency with regard to the filing of annual reports with OMR, and I think a shared deficiency — putting it as most charitably as possible, a shared deficiency with regard to the county's failure to inspect They are required under SMARA to inspect annually. They are required to inspect three times per year and that never happened. And, incidentally, a failure to do that is sometimes something which can lead to SMARA lead agency status being taken away by the department , MS. LAMBERT: Isn'tthere still some question, too, and I'm not sure 1 understand — in 1990 where there's mention of a limited partnership that was dissolved and no mining has taken place since that — since then, and so isn't there a possibility that they thought there was nothing occurring any more? MR. WILL Number one, that would have been from 1990, and there were no inspections between '82 and 1990. In other words — MS. LAMBERT: I'm sorry? MR. WILL: I'm sorry. You mentioned a dissolving of the partnership in 1990. MS. LAMBERT: Well, it's something I read. MR. WILL: Okay. All right But even if we VIM 117 1 There was — the Public Works department 1 2 apparently was to do the monitoring, which apparently 2 3 didn't happen. I don't know why. 3 4 There's a responsibility on the operator who 4 5 has the permit to follow the requirements that were set 5 6 forth in the conditions, and that didn't happen. And as 6 7 far as — 7 B MR. WILL Well, would you please identify the B 9 precise conditions you're discussing? 9 10 MS. LAMBERT: Well, weren't there reports that 10 11 were due? 11 12 MR. WILL It is true. 12 13 MS. LAMBERT: And operation reports and yearly 13 14 or annually or time, on a timeline, and that didn't 14 15 happen. 15 16 MR. WILL Okay. Operational reports are 16 17 required to be filed through the Department of 17 18 Conservation under a provision of SMARA. 18 19 And it is correct that those are supposed to 19 20 be filed annually with the department 20 21 And it is true that prior to North Continent's 21 22 taking over operator status on the mine, those annual 22 23 reports were not filed. 23 24 MS. LAMBERT: Okay. And the assurance figure, 24 25 that was not paid until — 25--t 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WILL' Well, see, there I don't agree with you. What 1 would say in that context is if you look at the permit and if you look at page 1, item number 3, it does contemplate that a lien on the property or portion thereof would be satisfactory for meeting the financial assurance requirements under SMARA. MS. LAMBERT: Did that happen? Was there a lien placed — MR. WILL Well, there's some — MS. LAMBERT: — on the property? MR. WILL: There's some problem here because we've been having some difficulty with records being retrieved by the county and so — MS. LAMBERT: Does. the operator have a record of whether he has a lien on his property? MR. WILL: I'm not aware of that. I think the answer is to that question is yes. MS. LAMBERT: So he would know. MR. WILL Yes. MS. LAMBERT: If I had a lien on my property,.. I would know. MR. WILL Yes. And we're hopeful that he'll be able to testify here very shortly. MS. LAMBERT: So, I mean, that's the type of 119 questions that bring us here. MR. WILL: Well, yeah. But my colleague, John, just made an important point If you have a lien on someone's property, you may have a right to place a lien, but you dont actually lien the property until you have some kind of debtor default which you want to be reimbursed. So it may be that that's why there's no lien actually recorded on the county's side. MR. LELAND: Well, I'm looking at the permit, July 9th, '82, number 5 says, "Submit a reclamation performance bond in the amount of $3,000." MR.WILL In subsequent communications between the county and Mr. Logan, he took issue with that, and so we believe or at least he has indicated that the county agreed to impose the language here under item number 3. But in any case, if I might, North Continent took over the operation in March of last year and they have filed financial assurance with the county or are in the process of doing that So at most — we have a whole litany of violations the county has thrown up against North Continent At most what we have is a deficiency with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 regard to the financial assurances, a deficiency with regard to the filing of annual reports with OMR, and I think a shared deficiency — putting it as most charitably as possible, a shared deficiency with regard to the county's failure to inspect They are required under SMARA to inspect annually. They are required to inspect three times per year and that never happened. And, incidentally, a failure to do that is sometimes something which can lead to SMARA lead agency status being taken away by the department , MS. LAMBERT: Isn'tthere still some question, too, and I'm not sure 1 understand — in 1990 where there's mention of a limited partnership that was dissolved and no mining has taken place since that — since then, and so isn't there a possibility that they thought there was nothing occurring any more? MR. WILL Number one, that would have been from 1990, and there were no inspections between '82 and 1990. In other words — MS. LAMBERT: I'm sorry? MR. WILL: I'm sorry. You mentioned a dissolving of the partnership in 1990. MS. LAMBERT: Well, it's something I read. MR. WILL: Okay. All right But even if we VIM • �i 100 Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 121 123 1 accepted that that's true, and I'm not sure that I agree 1 I want to correct one thing with regard to 2. — or I'm not sure that I agree with regard to that being 2 amendment of the rec plan. 3 the end of active mining on the site. Let's assume that 3 Earlier Mr. Thomas talked a little bit about 4 substantial deviation and he laid out a number of — I 4 that's correct 5 1 There were no annual inspections done or 5 mean, basically its straight out of the SMARA; and there 6 should have been, you know, thrice annually for the 6 are some guidelines also with regard to when a lead 7 period'B1, '82 through to 1990. 7 agency makes a determination that there's a substantial ' e And there certainly haven't been — well, B deviation that has occurred. 9 documentary evidence demonstrates there has been active 9 The substantial deviation analysis applies 10 mining on the site throughout the period up until the 10 only in the context of the reclamation plan, not the 11 present time. 11 permit, only in the context of the reclamation plan. 12 So, I mean, I don't know. We waft until the 12 And in this situation, even if we accept that 13 neighbor drives by and says, "Oh, you know, these guys 13 there's some ambiguity on the permit — which I don't 14 are mining," and call the county. 1 mean, the county is 14 think there is, but let's just for the sake of argument 15 supposed to be the SMARA lead agency and are supposed to 15 assume that 16 be paying attention to that sort of thing. They are 16 The rec plan says 250,000 cubic yards per 17 supposed to have on file — they have the permit — well, 17 year, 100 feet deep. And we are not planning to make any 18 presumably they have the permits and rec plan on file, 18 changes that are a substantial deviation from that 19 and they know who's got the mining operation in this 19 amount 20 county. 20 Therefore, the substantial deviation analysis 21 MS. LAMBERT: And what impact does the letter 21 with regard to how a lead agency takes into account 22 of October'92 to Ron Logan where they rescind the water 22 deviations or changes, therefore, requiring amendment of 23 discharge requirement by James Pedri of Water Quality 23 a rec plan don't apply Jn this context 24 Control — was that based on his not working the mine so, 24 We talked also about the EIR and we said, 25 therefore, they rescinded the discharge requirements? 25 okay, well, you know, we got a - we proceeded under a 122 r 124 1 MR. WILL: I'm not actually aware of what 1 negative declaration at the point in tim7hecn e had the 2 happened there. 2 approval and the county made the detn that an 3 It may well have been that the operational 3 EIR was not required for Phase 1. 4 nature of the mining at the site changed so there was 4 So we proceeded — or the counded 5 going to be no discharge. 5 under a neg dec, and the operator haoved beyond 6 MS. LAMBERT: I guess what I'm saying is that 6 Phase 1..' 7 1 think there's a lot of reason for people to think that 7 0 It's always been Phase 1. Its never been' e it was not operating for a period of time. B more than 20 cubic yards per day off site, and it won't 9 MR, WILL: All I can tell you, ma'am, is that 9 be. 10 we have photographs and we have people who have signed 10 North Continent is absolutely prepared to live 11 affidavits who said they've worked therethroughout the 11 within the conditions of the entitlements which they 12 entire period and it was an ongoing mining operation — 12 have, which is 20 cubic yards per day off site. 13 fully entitled and fully approved by the county, I might . 13 . I also want to mention with regard to the 14 add. 14 deficiencies, we talked about the financial assurances, 15 So, anyway, just to put that point really up 15 we've tried to put some financial assurances on the table 16 on the table in front of everybody. 16 now that North Continent is operating the site. 17 We're talking about 20 cubic yards off site 17 With regard to the annual reports, North 18 daily. We're talking about up to 250,000 cubic yards 18 Continent has contacted OMR and has made at least an 19 disturbance on site. 19 understanding with regard to how that deficiency can be. 20 That is what the entitlement is under the20 cured, and it involves payment of some fees, and fines and 21 pernit and under the reclamation plan and that is 21 other things of that nature. 22 absolutely what North Continent is prepared to live with 22 A'm not entirely sure how the county is able 23 going forward. 23 to cure the deficiency with regard to the annual 24 Therefore, there is no need for a new permit 24 inspections which were never done. 25 and there is no need for an amended rec plan. 25 Mr. Thomas also mentioned end use in his 100 • Transcript of Proceedings , March 13, 2008 • a • 127 anybody else in the neighborhood. We want to be a good neighbor. We want to be a steward of the land. We want to access the gold bearing sands and leave it cleaner than we found it Finally, I would just take a minute to talk about kind of a global economic viewpoint The mining operation offers jobs to people in the county. It allows for economic development in the county. You, I'm sure, have been reading the newspapers as of late and you know that the economic situation, at least the forecast going forward, may or may not be particularly promising. I think given those conditions, it's a situation where we have a fully entitled mine. We have done everything we can to minimize our disturbance of the . neighbors and we offer people jobs. We offer economic development People have a right to work. People have a right to work at our mine. We're absolutely in compliance with all of the requirements of our permit and of our rec plan with the exception of the annual monitoring which we are working wdh OMR to resolve. And with respect to potentially the financial assurances, which North Continent is more than prepared to provide the county with adequate financial assurances 125 1 substantial deviation analysis, and it is true that one 1 2 of the criteria applied by the lead agency with regard to 2 3 whether or not you have a substantial deviation from a 3 4 rec plan is whether or not it is no longer possible to 4 5 effectuate the end use described in the rec plan. 5 6 Our rec plan says we're going to replant 6 7 native species on the hillside there where the mine 7 B operation is, and we are still fully capable of doing 8 9 that and that is still absolutely our plan. 9 10 And as Don pointed out, when it's all done and to 11 it's all filled and it's all graded and it's seeded, 11 12 you'll never even know there was a mining operation 12 13 there. 13 14 But, again, absolutely the same thing which 14 15 was approved by this body when the reclamation plan was 15 16 approved in'82. 16 17 The road. The road looks pretty good to me. 17 is I think it's important to remember that there are other 18 19 people who are on that road and all of them are 19, 20 benefitting from North Continent's efforts to improve the 20 21 road and to make it smoother and all those things. 21 22 Carl talked a Tittle bit about how we don't 22 23 have control over the people who use the road, and that 23. 24 25 is the case. It's fully graded, it's fully covered with 24 25 127 anybody else in the neighborhood. We want to be a good neighbor. We want to be a steward of the land. We want to access the gold bearing sands and leave it cleaner than we found it Finally, I would just take a minute to talk about kind of a global economic viewpoint The mining operation offers jobs to people in the county. It allows for economic development in the county. You, I'm sure, have been reading the newspapers as of late and you know that the economic situation, at least the forecast going forward, may or may not be particularly promising. I think given those conditions, it's a situation where we have a fully entitled mine. We have done everything we can to minimize our disturbance of the . neighbors and we offer people jobs. We offer economic development People have a right to work. People have a right to work at our mine. We're absolutely in compliance with all of the requirements of our permit and of our rec plan with the exception of the annual monitoring which we are working wdh OMR to resolve. And with respect to potentially the financial assurances, which North Continent is more than prepared to provide the county with adequate financial assurances 101 126 128 1 gravel. Dust is minimal. We've put up signs requesting 1 going forward. There has been no increase in use. There . 2 people only going 15 miles per hour. 2 3 has been no increase in impacts. 1 think all of that, again, I would ask 3 As Carl noted, we will be looking at probably given 4 only a couple of trucks per week, and I think that's 4 why we're here. d don't really know other than Lee 5 important to make that note apparent to everybody, 5 called me up and said, "I. got this Order and I don't know 6 because you may be more familiar with sand and gravel, 6 where its coming from." 7 aggregate operations where you're talking about a lot of 7 1 don't know either. The mine is fully ; 8 entitled, and I dont see any reason why we're even B 9 'truck traffic. We're not talking about that. We move the 9 having this conversation. 10 disturbed material around the site. We shake it out. We 10 But having had this conversation, I would just . to leave you pointing out that in a period where 11 'extract the gold bearing sands. We put that into 20 11 12 want there may be some economic stagnation going forward, it 12, cubic yards per day and we move that off site, a handful be the best time to come with sort of unfounded 13 of trucks a day. And, again, fully entitled under the 13 14 may not charges against a: mining operation which is trying to 14 rec plan as it exists. The Cleanup and Abatement Order. That problem 15 operate in a dean, state of the art fashion. Thank you. 15 16 Does anyone have any questions? 16 has been solved. The mine is trying — you talked earlier 17 MR. LELAND: You described about phasing and 17 16 about well, we're halfway to a new rec plan: We dont 1B your interpretation of the fats is that phasing was 19 need a new rec plan. We're operating within the 19 triggered by economic concerns. MR. WILL: Well, it seems like in some of the 20 . entitlements that we have under our current plan. 20 21 correspondence that Mr. Logan had with the county, he 21 However, you are correct and I appreciate ,you that we're trying to do everything we can to run a 22 initially proposed 80 cubic yards per day and the county 22 23 noting state of the art operation. 23 apparently came back to him and they said, "You know, 24 We're trying to do everything we canto 24 were a Tittle bit nervous about that We don't think we to the neighbors or 125 can proceed under a neg dec when were talking about that 25 minimize our disturbances with regard 101 •Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 • 1 2 3 4 ".5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 volume off site every day and how about 20." And he has — its in the materials that we provided to you. There is a written letter from him responding to questions from the county, and they said, "Well, what would happen if we said how about 20 cubic yards," and so the kind of compromise that was arrived at at that point was "We'll go out, we'll five under the 20 cubic yards. We'll call it Phase 1. If I go out and I crush a bunch of rock and the gold bearing sands are of a significant richness that I can get by under that limitation, then I'de's good. If not, I will come back and I will seek additional approval from the Planning Commission to go to 80 cubic yards per day." And because, as it turned out, the gold bearing sands are quite rich, 20 cubic yards is workable and it also continues to be workable for North Continent and they are not asking for an expansion. They are not asking for Phase.2 MR. LELAND: I recall that exchange, and my take on it was that the lower scale was sort of a trial run to see what the economic consequences were going to be and how he could handle the lower scale without any. adverse environmental impacts. 1 didn'tsee the economic concern. I didn't see the Planning Commission saying, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 1 along with it because we're not trying to put anybody out 2 of business - 3 1 think what we're trying to do - we're not 4 even trying to put you out of business while you're 5 complying. 6 We're just trying to get you — and this,is my. 7 disagreement with you and we'll see how the. rest of the 8 commission goes. ' 9 1 think there's a compliance issue we're to dealing with here today, and that's — 11 MS. LAMBERT: Yes, we are. 12 MR. NELSON: — want to call it the legality 13 — we're talking about the legal and the scale of what 14 you're doing now versus what he was doing then, and 15 that's really what this whole argument is about. It's 16 not about putting anybody out of business. . 17 And you've as much as admitted it, I think, by 18 going through this process of creating these four 19 doduments and saying that this is all the stuff that 20 you've been thinking about doing. You haven't even 21 committed to doing it. 22 And to me, you've almost — you've like 23 written a reclamation plan in case things don't work out 24 today and you're saying that you don't think you should 25 have to go under a rec plan. I just — I don't — 130 "Well, see if you can make it," you know. MR. WILL: Well, no. But what I mean is that his concerns were economic. The Planning Commission concerns were based on environmental impacts. MR. LELAND: Is there anything in the record that talks about his economic concerns or is that just you from some other information? MR. WILL: There's some other information that I have, but also just the reality of him initially asking for 80, and I believe he did that under the expectation that at that level he would certainly be economically viable. The county had concerns about impacts, and so they came back and they said, "Well, you know what, we think at 20 your impacts will be reduced to the point where we can proceed under a negative declaration." And they sent him a letter and they said, "What about 20?" And he said — as I mentioned at the outset, it had been a contentious kind of process, and so he said, "Okay. And if I decide I need to ramp it up beyond 20, 1 will come bads and get additional approvals from the Planning Commission." MR. LELAND: Okay. Thank you. MR. NELSON: Well, I guess I — I don't see your global — your whole global thing to me, I don't go 132 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well — 2 (interruptions.). 3 THE REPORTER: Okay — 4 MR. NELSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute: I 5 can say what I want now. Would you. please sit down and 6 you'll have your time: 7 And that's kind of the way I'm reading it e right now is that -- is that this stuff just doesn't line 9 up to me. 10 And I think what we need to do today is not 11 sit here in argument, is to try to get a resolution and 12 try to figure out what where we are going to go with 13 this. 14 Because I think that our staff definitely does. 15 not agree with you, and I know that at this point I don't 16 agree with you. 17 But I'm not here today to put you out of 18 business. That's not what my — and I don't think that' 19 the rest of the commission is here for that reason, 20 either. 21 We're just here to try to figure out where 22 we're going to go and how we can get to this and resolve. 23 these issues, and I really think you — to your credit, 24 you have resolved a lot of the problems that have come up 25 today and I wish we could start focusing our discussion 102 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings t • ,r u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And so, therefore, we have gotten an order from the 'county. We don't think we're in violation. We think we're entirely within our rights and we don't need to go and get an -amended rec plan. (Brief pause.) MR. WILL: Frank made a good point. The issue of phasing, we had — you've got 20 some odd conditions of approval on the permit. Many of those conditions were not applicable to the negative declaration at the time that it was approved, and so — or certified by the Planning Commission. So I would just point out that the — the conditions of approval when they are kind of fit into the context of a negative declaration are sometimes called mitigation measures, and phasing — the phasing, the discussion of phasing and all that stuff is applicable — . was applicable to the permit and not to the negative declaration. So phasing was not a mitigation measure initially required by the negative declaration. (Brief pause.) MR. WILL And he just pointed out that the rec plan and the permit and the negative declaration — THE REPORTER: I'm sorry — MR. WILL: All the rec plan, the negative declaration and the permit are for mining of the entire �. 135 18 acre parcel. Does anyone else have any questions? MR. MARIN:. I only have one thing to say. You know, I've listened to everything very carefully and 1 want to hear what the rest of the people have to say. You know, somebody said it depends on what the definition of "is" is. The reason we're here — a good analogy would be like if they had approved a diamond mine, okay, and then they had said, well, you're not to exceed 20 cubic yards per day. And then as they start going, they scale an operation to a point where they are exceeding the 20 cubic yards by —1 don't know how many, you know, numbers. But then we come back here and say, "Well, wait a minute. My intention was to take out 20 cubic yards of diamonds, not" — you know, we weren't talking about disturbing the soil. But, you know, being that it was .a diamond mine, it would have been specified. MR. WILL: I think your analogy is apt, except for in this situation we have a reclamation plan which expressly states up to 250,000 cubic yards of disturbance every year is allowable under the rec plan. MR. MARIN: I'll give you that much. MR. WILL Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5" 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 • CHAIR WILSON: I think that we have some concerned citizens who live in the area and due to the fact that they've been waiting a long time to speak, I would like to take this time right now and let them have something to say here. I have cards here for the people that live on Dry Creek Road. If you live on Dry Creek Road, you may go ahead. (Brief pause.) MR. LOGAN: My name is Ron Logan. I've been there on that place 31 years and if there's anything I can do for you: I used to teach mining over here at the college. If it does any good, let me know. I -- we got 1 some good people working for us, with us. That's about it The land is patented, which -means that it's set aside. I used to teach mining over here at the college and it means it's set aside for the use of the people, the minerals in it So — and the whole section around us is patented. What can I help you with? MIR. MARK Sir — what was your understanding, sir, when you were — when you, you know, agreed to 20 cubic yards a day — MR. LOGAN: Yes. 103 133 1 on how we're going to resolve this thing and move forward . 1 2 3 with it. MR. WILL Okay. I appredatethat I think 2 . 3 4 that my initial reaction just sort of falls under the 4 5 category of no good deed goes unpunished. 5 6 These are not the reclamation plan. These are 6 7 documents prepared by the mine operator, some of them at . 7 8 the behest of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, 8 9 but not all. 9 10 10 The permit does not require a lot of this 11 stuff. The reclamation plan doesn'trequire a lot of 11 12 this stuff. This is being done to try to be a good 12 13 neighbor and only that13 14 Now, I would, secondly, take issue with you 14 15 and I think I would take issue with Mr. Thistlethwaite's 15 16 statement earlier about well, why not just amend the rec 16 17 18 plan. . Number one, because we don't have to and we're 17 18 19 fully entitled here and we can proceed under the rec 19 20 plan, and we're prepared to take that as far as that 20 21 needs to go. 21 22 Secondly — secondly, amendment of the 22 23 reclamation plan is not an easy process and it requires a 23 24 whole variety of procedure and process that my client 24 25 doesn't feel like they need to engage in or pay for. 25 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And so, therefore, we have gotten an order from the 'county. We don't think we're in violation. We think we're entirely within our rights and we don't need to go and get an -amended rec plan. (Brief pause.) MR. WILL: Frank made a good point. The issue of phasing, we had — you've got 20 some odd conditions of approval on the permit. Many of those conditions were not applicable to the negative declaration at the time that it was approved, and so — or certified by the Planning Commission. So I would just point out that the — the conditions of approval when they are kind of fit into the context of a negative declaration are sometimes called mitigation measures, and phasing — the phasing, the discussion of phasing and all that stuff is applicable — . was applicable to the permit and not to the negative declaration. So phasing was not a mitigation measure initially required by the negative declaration. (Brief pause.) MR. WILL And he just pointed out that the rec plan and the permit and the negative declaration — THE REPORTER: I'm sorry — MR. WILL: All the rec plan, the negative declaration and the permit are for mining of the entire �. 135 18 acre parcel. Does anyone else have any questions? MR. MARIN:. I only have one thing to say. You know, I've listened to everything very carefully and 1 want to hear what the rest of the people have to say. You know, somebody said it depends on what the definition of "is" is. The reason we're here — a good analogy would be like if they had approved a diamond mine, okay, and then they had said, well, you're not to exceed 20 cubic yards per day. And then as they start going, they scale an operation to a point where they are exceeding the 20 cubic yards by —1 don't know how many, you know, numbers. But then we come back here and say, "Well, wait a minute. My intention was to take out 20 cubic yards of diamonds, not" — you know, we weren't talking about disturbing the soil. But, you know, being that it was .a diamond mine, it would have been specified. MR. WILL: I think your analogy is apt, except for in this situation we have a reclamation plan which expressly states up to 250,000 cubic yards of disturbance every year is allowable under the rec plan. MR. MARIN: I'll give you that much. MR. WILL Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5" 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 • CHAIR WILSON: I think that we have some concerned citizens who live in the area and due to the fact that they've been waiting a long time to speak, I would like to take this time right now and let them have something to say here. I have cards here for the people that live on Dry Creek Road. If you live on Dry Creek Road, you may go ahead. (Brief pause.) MR. LOGAN: My name is Ron Logan. I've been there on that place 31 years and if there's anything I can do for you: I used to teach mining over here at the college. If it does any good, let me know. I -- we got 1 some good people working for us, with us. That's about it The land is patented, which -means that it's set aside. I used to teach mining over here at the college and it means it's set aside for the use of the people, the minerals in it So — and the whole section around us is patented. What can I help you with? MIR. MARK Sir — what was your understanding, sir, when you were — when you, you know, agreed to 20 cubic yards a day — MR. LOGAN: Yes. 103 • • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11� 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 MR. MARIN: You taught mining and you know dam well that, you know, a finished product is totally different than native soil or raw material. MR. LOGAN: Well — MR. MARIN: If you taught mining, you would know that So why wasn't it specified? -What was your understanding that $3,000 was going to be sufficient financial assurance for mining 250,000, you know, tons of raw soil? MR. LOGAN: The way it was explained to me and from the get it was — we had 20 yards of product we could produce a day, and thats the way it all come down, 20 yards of concentrate. MR. MARIN: And your understanding was 20 yards of product? MR. LOGAN: Oh, yeah. And you — and they had us put the property up because I didn't have any money for the reclamation plan, or to — you know, to do the reclamation. And now they tell me that you ve lost that or the county has lost that or something, but we still it, . the paper, and I hope we get it resolved. It's there to work and we need the money and we need the jobs. MR. MARIN: I would concur with you on that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 1' when I did it And we've been — and then they never 2 have notified us or let us know anything. 3 1 mean, I don't want to say what I really 4 think about how they've treated — the county has treated 5 me. They forgot about us or whatever you want to call 6 it, and now everybody acts like we — hey, we just came 7 in there. We've been there mining for 31 years, man. 3 MR. NELSON: I don'tthink there's really been 9 an impact until the last six to eight months as far as a 10 noticeable impact of what's going ,on — 11 MR. LOGAN: Well, yes, probably so. 12 MR. NELSON: — in the mine, and you have to 13 admit that 14 Because, you know, we read some documentation 15 on some reports where the Fish and Game gentleman came 16 down and said he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be 11 doing, everything is fine. 18 But all of a sudden, over the last six to 19 eight months, there's a scale that has changed of what 20 you were doing over those first whatever, however many 21 years — 22 MR. LOGAN: We were mining. 23 MR. NELSON: And what's going on now. It's 24 different It is different 25 MR LOGAN: Well, it's a different method of 138 MR. LOGAN: We're clear out of sight of everybody. They can't hear us. All that's been gone through. It's like on and on and on. We're hoping to get it resolved so we can get to work. MR. MARIN: Thank you. MR. NELSON: Well, I never saw the word "product" in any of the documents I've seen. I've seen 20 cubic yards and I guess we can interpret that whatever, but I never — I've heard the word "product," I've heard the word "finished black sands" today. I've heard all these things put before me, but nowhere in any of the documentation on all this stuff I've read have I seen 20 cubic acres of product MR. LOGAN: Cubic yams. MR. NELSON: Yards. I'm song, yards of product. MR. LOGAN: Well, that's what — that's how it went through when 1 did it. How could you mine 20 yards? If you were a miner, you wouldn't even say that Like you can't make a living and work and have equipment on 20 yards. That's crazy. It had to have been finished product, 20 yards, and that's what was — that's the way they told me .140 1 mining. But panning is mining. Sluicing is mining. 2 Walking around on the slate, which you can do on my 3 property, and pick up nuggets, that's mining. Like it's 4 ' all mining. Like — and this idea that — 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They are concerned 6 about the scale. 7 MR. LOGAN: The what? 8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They are justconcerned 9 about the scale. We are still mining the same amount of 10 dirt 11 All we're doing is modernizing the plant It 12 looks really different, but you cant run no more 13 material any faster through the machinery than has ever 14 been run before. 15 We're not trying to — you know, we're not 16 trying to pour 25 gallons of water through a hole that 11 big. You still have a hole that big you have to go 18 through to process the ore. 19 All we've done is modernize the plant to'' 20 shrink up our cubic yardage and — 21 CHAIR WILSON: Okay. Thank you. 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And I'm sonY. I'm his 23 oldest son. 24 MS. LAMBERT: What does this language mean 25 when it says, "Operation will be," and it lists, "Under 104 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings • r LJ 142 1 mean processed? 2 MR. LOGAN: Well, it may mean moving — 3 MS. LAMBERT: Holes? 4 MR. LOGAN: We got to move the surface to put 5 back on our reclamation plan. We got to move the 6 material to make the mine work. 7 You know, it's — but we do it in a neat, 8 orderly fashion. 9 MS. LAMBERT: And so the operation refers to 10 moving all of the material, whatever it may be? 11 MR. LOGAN: Everything. 12 MS. LAMBERT: Okay. 13 MR, LOGAN: its just a guess, you know. 14 MS. LAMBERT: I understand that its a guess. 15 That's all you could do. 16 MR. LOGAN: Yes. That's all I could do. 17 MR. LELAND: Did you know when you — well, at 18 the time you applied for the permit, did you know what 19 the ratio of finished product to native soil was going to 20 be? 21 MR. LOGAN: It depends. What it is, is 11 22 'flows in the Magalia channel and each Flow become bedrock 23 for the next flow. You know what I'm saying? Its 24 settled and gold settles down and each bedrock —each 25 flow becomes bedrock for the next flow, and there's 11 of 143 them in a 1,300 foot — you know, our property is 1,309 feet or whatever it is. But the 18 acres — when the guy patented, he knew what was he was doing, and he patented the river where it crosses Dry Creek. And there's some light and then it gets — there's gold in all of it, but — and the other metals, too. But it's light at the top of them and heavy at the bottom. It's concentrated on different layers, so you can'tsay — you never know until you get it in the. pan. You never know what's going on until you get it, until you mine it, but it's there. CHAIR WILSON: Any more questions? MR. NELSON: No. CHAIR WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Logan. Do we have any other residents of Dry Creek Road that would like to speak? I have a Lucy Cook, a Richard Meyers, Clarence Hasty, Susan Whittlesey, Harriet Hoover. MR. WHITTLESEY: Okay. I've got to be somewhere. John Whittlesey. I'm also the owner of the large nursery on Dry Creek Road which I'm the ownerloperator of zero employees and it's about a third of an acre. Not exactly a large operation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 MR, NELSON: I think you and your wife each submitted a letter to us. MR. WHITTLESEY: Yes, we did. And we're concerned about the mine. So I'm probably nervous with this group. I'm used to giving talks in front of garden clubs and things like that, and this is not a garden club. And just there has been a lot leading up to this, so— You know, 1 appreciate Ron Logan being an owner/operator. I mean, that's what I am and it's a lot of work. You know, it's a lot to work to be a small operation. I don't appreciate what's happening now, so I'm going to read this. I've been a canyon resident in Dry Creek Canyon since 1965. We've raised our two kids there.. I'd like to voice my frustration over the status of the New Era Mine as operated by North Continent Land and Timber, Inc. I find it difficult to understand why they are still operating, why they have not been stopped until all these assurances have been made to maintain the quality of life in the canyon. Quality of life meaning issues affecting the residents of the canyon, issues regarding the health of .105 141 1 5,000 tons cubic yards slash a year, 5,000 to 50,000 tons 1 2 cubic yards per year. 50,000 to 250,000 tons of cubic 2 3 yards per year," and what does that mean when it says the 3 4 operation will be this number? What is operation? 4 5 MR. LOGAN: What does operation mean? 5 6 MS. LAMBERT: It's in the permit Its — 6 1 MR. LOGAN: its — I imagine its — I've 7 e never seen this before. 8 9 MS. LAMBERT: Its your use permit 9 10 (Interruption. Simultaneous speakers.) 10 11 MS. LAMBERT: I'm song, reclamation plan. 11 12 MR. LOGAN: I don'treally — is stuff that— 12 13 you know, they had never done a reclamation plan before 13 14 in Butte County. 14 15MS. LAMBERT: Well, this is the form that you 15 16 signed in 1982 that I'm looking at, and I'm wondering 16 17 what — 17 18 MR. LOGAN: Well, I would — 18 19 MS. LAMBERT: — that language — 19 20 MR. LOGAN: I made a guess that how much we'd 20 21 be running into Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3. That's how 21 22 the county wanted it on a cut and cover reclamation, and 22 23 we've been mining all over that 18 acres for, you know, 23 24 31 years and — 24 25 MS. LAMBERT: But does the word "operation" 25 142 1 mean processed? 2 MR. LOGAN: Well, it may mean moving — 3 MS. LAMBERT: Holes? 4 MR. LOGAN: We got to move the surface to put 5 back on our reclamation plan. We got to move the 6 material to make the mine work. 7 You know, it's — but we do it in a neat, 8 orderly fashion. 9 MS. LAMBERT: And so the operation refers to 10 moving all of the material, whatever it may be? 11 MR. LOGAN: Everything. 12 MS. LAMBERT: Okay. 13 MR, LOGAN: its just a guess, you know. 14 MS. LAMBERT: I understand that its a guess. 15 That's all you could do. 16 MR. LOGAN: Yes. That's all I could do. 17 MR. LELAND: Did you know when you — well, at 18 the time you applied for the permit, did you know what 19 the ratio of finished product to native soil was going to 20 be? 21 MR. LOGAN: It depends. What it is, is 11 22 'flows in the Magalia channel and each Flow become bedrock 23 for the next flow. You know what I'm saying? Its 24 settled and gold settles down and each bedrock —each 25 flow becomes bedrock for the next flow, and there's 11 of 143 them in a 1,300 foot — you know, our property is 1,309 feet or whatever it is. But the 18 acres — when the guy patented, he knew what was he was doing, and he patented the river where it crosses Dry Creek. And there's some light and then it gets — there's gold in all of it, but — and the other metals, too. But it's light at the top of them and heavy at the bottom. It's concentrated on different layers, so you can'tsay — you never know until you get it in the. pan. You never know what's going on until you get it, until you mine it, but it's there. CHAIR WILSON: Any more questions? MR. NELSON: No. CHAIR WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Logan. Do we have any other residents of Dry Creek Road that would like to speak? I have a Lucy Cook, a Richard Meyers, Clarence Hasty, Susan Whittlesey, Harriet Hoover. MR. WHITTLESEY: Okay. I've got to be somewhere. John Whittlesey. I'm also the owner of the large nursery on Dry Creek Road which I'm the ownerloperator of zero employees and it's about a third of an acre. Not exactly a large operation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 MR, NELSON: I think you and your wife each submitted a letter to us. MR. WHITTLESEY: Yes, we did. And we're concerned about the mine. So I'm probably nervous with this group. I'm used to giving talks in front of garden clubs and things like that, and this is not a garden club. And just there has been a lot leading up to this, so— You know, 1 appreciate Ron Logan being an owner/operator. I mean, that's what I am and it's a lot of work. You know, it's a lot to work to be a small operation. I don't appreciate what's happening now, so I'm going to read this. I've been a canyon resident in Dry Creek Canyon since 1965. We've raised our two kids there.. I'd like to voice my frustration over the status of the New Era Mine as operated by North Continent Land and Timber, Inc. I find it difficult to understand why they are still operating, why they have not been stopped until all these assurances have been made to maintain the quality of life in the canyon. Quality of life meaning issues affecting the residents of the canyon, issues regarding the health of .105 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings • r� 145 1 Dry Creek, issues of the aquifer and ground water and the 2 , overall impacts of the environment are addressed. 3 Today actually felt like a holiday to me. The 4 road was quiet. No traffic. It was great We haven't 5 had that for months. They are in and out seven days a 6 week Even on Christmas they brought in huge equipment 7 at 7 a.m. in the morning. So today was really nice. It 8 felt like the canyon was kind of back to normal. 9 So I read the annual SMARA inspection report 10 from December, 2007. And in the report there are check 11 boxes for the following questions. 12 "Does the mine have a valid permit to mine?" 13 This is checked no. 14 "Does the mine have an approved reclamation 15 plan?" Check no. 16 "Does the operator currently have a lead 17 agency approved financial assistance?" Also check no. 16 I've read a lot of the SMARA stuff and I'm not 19 up on it like the lawyer is, but its pretty clear to me 20 that if you really don't have those — and that's, of 21 course, the issue today — they shouldn't be mining. 22 So SMARA — and, again, its a significant 23 deviation and that's what you're all going to be 24 deciding, and I think'd you drive up there and look at 25 this.mine, it is significant deviation. 147 1 feet above the creek on a narrow strip. There's nowhere 2 else for this loose material to flow. 3 They've corrected these problems apparently, 4 but initially if we had had a huge rain - we did not. 5 December 4th. We have not had huge rains yet this year. 6 So anyway, as a matter of fate and not the 7 result of good planning or a well-designed mine. 8 In talking with Josh Brennan, Fish and Game 9 warden for the area, I hear conflicting views. On one 10 side he talks about the good job they are doing. He told 11 me this in the fall before the Cleanup and Abatement 12 Order was issued. Better than most mines he's seen. 13 Then on the flip side he says, yes, there have 14 been violations to Fish and Game law, but he did not cite 15 them because of the mine's good intentions. 16The damage to the creek was caused as a result 17 of the Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by Water 18 Quality Control. i9 So, again, careful planning would have 20 prevented this. You go up there and, I mean, if you see 21 the creek, you know the riparian habitat is a mess. 22 r So if the mining was being done correctly with 23 an approved plan of operation, the creek could have been 24 better protected. 25 1 If North Continental Land and Timber, Inc., 146 1 You can nitpick all the legal issues, but this 2 thing is a lot bigger than it used to be.. 3 So I say SMARA is clear in its prescriptions 4 of significant deviation from the original permit. Along 5 with the significant increase in scope, it is the 6 responsibility of the operators to file an updated 7 reclamation plan. B I don't understand their hesitancy. Why 9 hasn'tthis happened? Why aren't they being forced into 10 doing this when it's dear this is a necessary 11 requirement? Why the hesitation on their part? I don't 12 understand it. 13 So from the beginning of North Continent Land 14 and Timber taking over the New Era Mine, many issues have 15 slipped between the cracks. 16 The fad that the increased the scope of the li operation without all of the above and it took government 18 agencies four to five months to act. 19 In the meantime, significant damage to the 20 areaalong Dry Creek was caused. It's really a matter of 21 luck, I think, that there wasn't greater damage. 22 One major storm. One significant rain event, 23 and ail that graded unprotected land could have just slid 24, right down into the creek. 25 Keep in mind, the mine is perched 30 to 40 148 1 have so much experience as they claim, why be so 2 careless? Why did they require the Cleanup and Abatement 3 Order? 4 The riparian corridor along the creek has been 5 significantly damaged. But who protects the riparian 6 corridor which -is so important to the overall health and 7 ecology of the creek? Apparently, in this case, no one. 8 Josh Brennan told me that, sure, the riparian 9 environment is important But legally Fish and Game is 10 only concerned with the creek bed. 11 So who isconcemed with the whole view of the 12 creek? This falls through the cracks unless there's a 13 thorough environmental review and understanding of the 14 impacts of this project 15 Our spring, which I think neighbors will talk 16 more about, we're all dependent on these springs for 11 household water and irrigation water. 18 Springs are tenuous. Who protects these 19 springs and the aquifer? Without a thorough 20 understanding of these springs, I think the mine should 21 stop. 22 Again, instead of standing up and working with 23 the residents of the canyon to alleviate our concerns, 24 they stand by and flaunt a 1962 hydrology report paid for 25 my Mr. Logan. 106 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings C; • 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 149 You can bet that this was not a comprehensive look at how the springs and the aquifer operate in the canyon. Mr. Logan could not afford the $3,000 financial assurance, so I doubt if he' spent a lot of money on a complete hydrology report. So it appears that we're relying upon the goodwill of North Continent Timber and Land to oversee that our springs are not affected by their mine.' If we, the residents, hire a hydrologist and come up with findings different than the'B2 determinations by Mr. Logan, what is our recourse? I mean, if we find that if they do something our springs can be damaged,'you know, where do we go from there? Is there a pathway for us to pursue, or are we to have faith that the mine operators will be thinking of our interests? So we can't let the springs slip through any cracks opened by the mining. I question a company that has apparently more than significant resources, and yet they nitpick on the issues instead of standing up and producing a revised reclamation plan that is current, satisfies SMARA recommendations. They somehow maintain that the reclamation plan in 1982 is valid. We've been over that And then l 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 151 1 be overlooked unless this process is slowed down - 2 1 am not against mining of the canyon, but I 3 am against an out of state group of investors coming in, 4 not following the law and balking and seemingly taking a 5 defiant stance to follow a steady, steady process that 6 considers all impacts of the mining operation. Thank 7 you. 8 CHAIR WILSON: Anybody else on Dry Creek Road 9 that would like to speak at this time? 10 MS. COOKE Okay. I'm Lucy Cooke. And first 11 1 want to thank you for the work you do. I can't imagine 12 it Ifried to go through this paperwork and it's 13 incredible. 14 And I'm not exactly against the mine. I think 15 these guys have enough money to do it right Why on 16 earth you nitpicking? I mean — but now—1_mean, 17 there's a lot of things to talk about 18 We need a hydrology report We're working 19 with HydroFocus in'Davis. They are really good. We 20 expect you all to pay for them. Our springs need to be 21 protected. Actually, this group, I have to admit I was 22 rather shocked. I was — you know, they looked at a lot 23 of maps in our area: They haven't come out yet They 24 need permission to go on the mine property. " 25, And, you know, I was just sort of going what 152 question this 20 cubic yards a day. They keep going through that. And 1 would think that somewhere Mr. Logan, who is processing there, if he had 20 yards of finished product, there's got to be receipts for taking this stuff off site. They keep talking about off site, taking it all off site. If you're taking 20 cubic yards of black sand someplace to have it processed, there's got to be some receipts for that So I'm not impressed. Why do they not accept their obligation to the law instead of being hounded by the county. If they want to demonstrate responsible mining, then we need to see signs of responsible action. 'And I know what is not falling between the cracks, and that's gold. They are doing everything they can to keep the gold from falling between the cracks. In the last two months, they have put in this huge state of the art processing plant, all while this Order is going on and kind of the uncertainty of their future up there, and they have just put in some really incredible plant up there. So it's dear where their priorities lie, but there are many concerns to the residents of the canyon to those interested in protecting the environment that may 1 sort bond could they put up to protect our springs if 2 damaging them is a possibility. 3 This guy just says, yeah, 2 million bucks, 4 that might do it So anyhow, we want the hydrology 5 report That's really important We're accustomed to 6 high quality, you know, gravity flow water. You know, 7 we've had it — some of the springs, you know — 8 1 mean, I've lived in the canyon -- actually, 9 its my husband's family's ranch, so they were there for 10 a really long time. 11 Okay. This 20 cubic yards nonsense. Look, we 12 walk that road all the time. You can look — as you saw, 13 you can just look down on the mine. Incidentally, l 14 appreciate you going to — you know, going down the road, 15 Mr, Wilson. 16 And we would know if there was an operation 17 capable of taking out 20 cubic yards of fine. You know, 18 I mean, this is — you know, we just — it's very 19 visible. So itfs seems absolutely nonsensical that that 20 could be in debate. 21And one of the issues is one of trust and one 22 of a certain amount of intimidation. I mean, Logan has 23 routinely threatened to shoot me. I'm not dead yet 24 But the Fish and Game Tuesday just let us.know ' 25 that the mine is now claiming the right to divert 50 107 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of_Proceedings • • 153 1 percent of Dry Creek water. 2 Interesting. In 1960 there was a court 3 ordered adjudication of the water rights along the creek, 4 which is — I imagine maybe Logan has a copy of it 1 5 don't know. 6 Now, the property then was called Orendors and 7 they have a well. You know, the diversions are all 8 noted. We have a diversion. And there was a large 9 diversion for the New Era Mine, but this is the old New 10 Era Mine that was — if you look at the small map that I 11 think is on page 50 of the staff report, you'll notice a 12 Tittle tiny type: The New Era is on the property to the 13 east of Logan's property. The old — this is — 14 MR. NELSON: The old topo map. 15 MS. COOKE: Yeah, yeah. Its an old — what 16 do you call it — a tunnel mine. 17 But, now, they did have diversion rights, 18 according to 1960, but those have not been kept up. One 19 has to file on these rights and such. And, besides, the 20 property is owned by David Ellis and maybe he's sold them 21 the rights, but I don't think that's necessarily 22 possible. 23 So — but its just sort of bad faith. You 24 know, I mean, the mine — the mine — you guys can 25 operate a good mine. You have the money to. And I'm all 154 155 1 widen the road to two lanes. 2 This is a narrow road. Its an historic 3 prescriptive right through our property. We don't want 4 two lanes of road. We — actually, I personally rather 5 life with potholes. We had to all drive slow when there 6 were lots of potholes. ` 7 1 mean, moderation. We've got to have B culverts that work. I didn't like those squashed ends of 9 culverts. That was real tedious. 10 And the road was in very good shape before the 11 mine came in. They haven't improved it all that much. I 12 realize the gravel and the dust is incredible but — you 13 know, for the people that live dose to the road. 14 But possibly that can be dealt with, but we 15 need to change the condition 8 on the permit about 16 improving Dry Creek Road because residents need to have 17 some say in how its improved. The last thing we want is 18 a thoroughfare. So that needs to be changed. 19 We need a hydrology report You can still 20 operate. But I cannot fathom if these guys were limited 21 — I realize 20 cubic yards a day is real small. I am 22 aware of that Its like excavating a bathtub's worth of 23 stuff. 24 But who is going to enforce what you say? 25 These guys — ff I trusted you, I'd have some faith. 1 156 1 for employees. 2 Now, the road. The road is a problem. First 3 of all, we need — I think we need a new permit. We need 4 an EIR. And we need - but also, let's see. 5 And condition 8 says, "Improve Dry Creek 6 Road." Okay. Now, this is a point of contention. We 7 never should have put that in. 8 Except; you know, there is one other mine that 9 has gotten a permit on the road, the 200 acres I believe 10 adjacent and north of the Logan property, and they 11 actually attempted a fairly large operation that went 12 bust, but all their equipment squashed the ends of all 13 our culverts. 14 1 mean, I don't want a perfect surface and the 15 new gravel they put down might be impressive to you, if 16 you don't walk on the road. Walking on three-quarter 17 crushed gravel or riding a bike on it is not fun and we 18 didn't ask for that 19 And the —through our ranch its a 20 prescriptive right and they have an absolute right to go . 21 through it, but I want — we need to have some say on how 22 they improve it 23 1 came out there one day. They were working 24 on the road and I was told that the guy working on the 25 road had a contract by — the county had ordered him to 1 — there's no trust I mean, how — whatever limit you 2 put on them, how are you going to enforce it? Are you 3 going to have a babysitter there that doesn't take 4 bribes? I mean, that's a problem. 5 So also you'll notice on the staff report. I 6 was just thinking of this. 20 cubic yards of fine is the 7 most incredibly stupid thing I have ever heard in my e life. 9 i You know, there's — what page? Page 21 of 10 the staff report Ron Logan is quoting, you know, our 11' springs won't be affected. He felt that — anyway, you 12 know, the proposed $10,000 bond was entirely unreasonable 13 for the I'dtle hole that his proposed 20 cubic yards per 14, day operation would make. That's Ron Logan's words back 15 in 1982 16 And actually, l mean — also, one thing about 17 this water. We need this hydrology report You know, 18 water is far — going to be more valuable than oil, for 19 those who pay attention to what the future is going to be 20 bringing, and we need water more than we need gold, so we 21 want our springs projected. 22 1 also think we need to look at the aquifer 123 because this is the recharging area for the big aquifer 24 underlying Butte County and this is real important 25 research and it just needs consideration. • • • Transcript of Proceedings' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 157 We need to go at this process a little slower, , but whatever conditions you need to put on the mine, you've got to have a way of enforcing them or forget it, you know. Anyway, I'm upset about it. But you guys — you guys could do it. You have the money to do it. Do it right. CHAIR WILSON: Thank you. Anyone else on Dry Creek Road like to speak? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to speak for myself and — CHAIR WILSON: State your name and sign in, please. MS. WHITTLESEY: Okay. I'd like to speak for another neighbor who is unfortunately unable to be here today and she's written a statement that I believe you all have copies of and I'm going to read that and then speak for myself. Shall I sign in her name as well? CHAIR WILSON: Just sign your name. MS. LAMBERT: And then use the mike. It's hard to hear you. CHAIR WILSON: Don't be afraid of it. MS. WHITTLESEY: This is. a statement written by Harriet S. Hoover, who lives on Dry Creek Road. "1 commend the county staff for its careful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 March 13, 2008 159 1 application fors? We've seen this ploy for months 2 already. 3 "The news and review notes that 4 Mr. Thistlethwaite found it, quote, 'Highly unusual for a 5 project to get this far along without having permits in 6 place; dose quote. 7 "The fact that the county apparently looked 8 the other way for months is no excuse for continued 9 illegal operation. 10 "It should also be noted that the mine. 11 operates daim of, quote,, 'Decades of experience in cut 12 and cover,' end quote, includes criminal convictions in 13 both Arkansas and British Columbia. 14 "1 urge the county to issue an immediate 15 injunction and, to require that the New Era Mine cease and 16 desist from all mining operations until such time that it 17 is determined that the mine is operating under a legal 18 permit 19 "To allow the mine to continue operation while 20 legal questions are addressed, which in light of the 21 evidence seems a stalling tactic at best, is like asking 22 the fox to curb his appetite while the farmer is away 23 looking at pictures of foxes. 24 "Should the county fail to stop these illegal 25 operations which endanger neighbors and the environment, 158 and detailed documentation.of activities and communications regarding the New Era Mine from the 1981 to the present "The documentation reveals a long history of flagrant violations of county, state and federal laws by the New Era Mine. "The documentation also makes clear that the current operators either circumvent the law — for example, ignoring inspection requirements — or misrepresent their activities, such as the phony backdated MRRC 2 fors. Is this not fraud? "Staff documentation also shows that the original permit is not applicable for a number of reasons, not the least of which are the lack of regular inspections, the lack of continuous operation, and the vast increase in size from the original stipulations. "Reading the staff report, I felt some relief that our months of gathering evidence were finally acknowledged. Yet the final recommendation dashed my hopes and seemed highly inappropriate, the weight of significance and continuous violations. "I see no teeth, no immediate consequence, no immediate cessation of illegal activity. Five more weeks while they search for consultants and licensed professionals? Three months to shuffle mining permit 160 1 impacted citizens are prepared to take further action 2 which will include legal recourse as well media 3 involvement" 4 And now I'd like to speak for myself. I'm 5 Elida and Dry Creek Canyon has been my home since I was 6 three months old, and wherever 1 am, I consider Dry Creek 7 Canyon to be my home. 8 As a geographer, place is extremely important 9 to me. 10 1 am deeply concerned about the current and 11 potential impacts of the New Era Mine and I urge the 12 Planning Commission to revoke the 1982 permit and require 13 a new permit application. 14 If the current operation is to continue in any 15 form, an environmental impact report is absolutely 16 essential. 17 The mine's impact on our springs, creek, road 18 and air quality are unknown and are potentially 19 tremendous. All operations at the New Era Mine must 20 cease until the mine's impacts are research and weighed. 21 And before I continue with what I have 22 prepared, I would also like to address a few things that 23 came up earlier today. 24 There were a couple of questions from 25 Commissioner Lambert asking — one of them was about the 109 C F� March 13,'2008 Transcript of Proceedings 162 1 condition in it that the Planning Commission may suspend 2 or revoke the permit or modify the permit or may place 3 the operator on probation should the violation found to 4 exist be of a serious nature adversely affecting the 5 health and welfare of the residents of the county, and I 6 feel that this could adversely affect our health and 7 welfare and we would like serious action on this. B And we are talking about the springs today and 9 1 just want to clarify their location or possible 10 location in regard to the mine. 11 The mine is taking place on the west side of 12 the canyon on the western wall. It's between the 13 elevation of, I believe, 700 and possibly a thousand feet 14 • or 900 feet. 15 And our springs, as you go south in the 16 canyon, issue from elevations ranging from about 700 to 17 860 or 900 feet. 18 And so if they are tunneling or disturbing 19 soil into the canyon wall, how will that affect our 20 springs? They are at the same level of deposits 21 'possibly. We don't know how this works, but that is why 22 specifically we're concerned. 23And so then according to environmental case 24 law — just to emphasize how we feet that an EIR is 25 essential. 163 According to environmental case law, quote, "The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fad, analyzed and considered the ecological implications.of its action," and 1 can cite that if you want me to. In another case, 'The EIR serves not only to protect the environment, but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected," and we need such a demonstration. The recent staff report makes it clear, that the mitigated negative declaration for the New Era Mine in 1982 was based on it's small size and scope. According to the report, quote, 'The current level of disturbance at the New Era Mine is not consistent with the previously adopted environmental determination" close quote. Many people living at the canyon at the time in 1981 and 1982 requested an Elk at hearings and in writing. And in the 1982 staff report, Steven Streeter notes, quote, "The public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on this project between August and October of 1981 demonstrated that there is serious public controversy concerning the environmental effects of this project." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164 In accordance with Section 15-084(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an environmental impact report should be prepared in such instances. An exception is made to the EIR requirement when the controversy, is not related to an environmental issue. In this case, many of the concerns raised by property owners in the vicinity and by representatives of local and state agencies do pertain to environmental issues. The potential for serious environmental degradation has increased exponentially since that time with the large scale mining operation that now occupies the Logan property. This winter, extensive mud slides on the property and the severe sedimentation of the creek were narrowly averted by the intervention of the Water Quality Control Board when it issued the Cleanup and Abatement Order. According to the recent staff report, quote, "Had a site inspection not been made on December 5th, 2007, extensnre site erosion and heavy sedimentation of Dry Creek would have resulted in the heavy rains" Gose quote. Additionally, Phil Woodward noted — and this 110.; 161 1 phases of the operation and what was the county's staffs 1 2 determination on what the current phase was. 2 3 And county staff called neighbors into a 3 4 meeting in late January, and at that meeting they told us 4� 5 that they considered the current operation to be beyond 5 6 Phase 3, and 1 didn't feel that that was addressed, 6 1 beyond Phase 3, and I didn't feel that was addressed when 7 B your question came up. B 9 And I also wanted to emphasize that this new .9 10 plant that has been mentioned was brought in in the past 10 11 two months, and we can look over the mine site from the 11 12 road, and we are also aware of the traffic coming up and 12 13, down the road. 13 14 It is a small intimate canyon and we saw 14 15 enormous pieces of equipment going in. Once I asked, one 15 16 of the pieces of equipment was a sifting platform. 16 17 And I also want to mention that having read 17 18 the staff report, it was very interesting to read and , is 19 they addressed the 20 cubic yards per day quite well, and 19 20, this is a quote. They said it was consistently 20 21 unambiguous as to what those 20 cubic yards referred to, 21 22 that its total amount disturbed on the site and not 22 23 removed off site. 23 24 And reading the permit again today. I think 24 25 that its extremely important that there is the second 25 162 1 condition in it that the Planning Commission may suspend 2 or revoke the permit or modify the permit or may place 3 the operator on probation should the violation found to 4 exist be of a serious nature adversely affecting the 5 health and welfare of the residents of the county, and I 6 feel that this could adversely affect our health and 7 welfare and we would like serious action on this. B And we are talking about the springs today and 9 1 just want to clarify their location or possible 10 location in regard to the mine. 11 The mine is taking place on the west side of 12 the canyon on the western wall. It's between the 13 elevation of, I believe, 700 and possibly a thousand feet 14 • or 900 feet. 15 And our springs, as you go south in the 16 canyon, issue from elevations ranging from about 700 to 17 860 or 900 feet. 18 And so if they are tunneling or disturbing 19 soil into the canyon wall, how will that affect our 20 springs? They are at the same level of deposits 21 'possibly. We don't know how this works, but that is why 22 specifically we're concerned. 23And so then according to environmental case 24 law — just to emphasize how we feet that an EIR is 25 essential. 163 According to environmental case law, quote, "The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fad, analyzed and considered the ecological implications.of its action," and 1 can cite that if you want me to. In another case, 'The EIR serves not only to protect the environment, but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected," and we need such a demonstration. The recent staff report makes it clear, that the mitigated negative declaration for the New Era Mine in 1982 was based on it's small size and scope. According to the report, quote, 'The current level of disturbance at the New Era Mine is not consistent with the previously adopted environmental determination" close quote. Many people living at the canyon at the time in 1981 and 1982 requested an Elk at hearings and in writing. And in the 1982 staff report, Steven Streeter notes, quote, "The public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on this project between August and October of 1981 demonstrated that there is serious public controversy concerning the environmental effects of this project." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164 In accordance with Section 15-084(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an environmental impact report should be prepared in such instances. An exception is made to the EIR requirement when the controversy, is not related to an environmental issue. In this case, many of the concerns raised by property owners in the vicinity and by representatives of local and state agencies do pertain to environmental issues. The potential for serious environmental degradation has increased exponentially since that time with the large scale mining operation that now occupies the Logan property. This winter, extensive mud slides on the property and the severe sedimentation of the creek were narrowly averted by the intervention of the Water Quality Control Board when it issued the Cleanup and Abatement Order. According to the recent staff report, quote, "Had a site inspection not been made on December 5th, 2007, extensnre site erosion and heavy sedimentation of Dry Creek would have resulted in the heavy rains" Gose quote. Additionally, Phil Woodward noted — and this 110.; • • Transcript of Proceedings - March 13, 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 166 growing up, I was always aware that this is an historic use of the area. And I was also rather proud in some instances to be reading about the gold rush and realized that it took place right here. At the same time, I have always been aware of the significant damage -- hydraulic mining, in particular' — caused to Cherokee which we still see today and other locations near where I live. So I'm not opposed to mining in Dry Creek Canyon. I think that it could be done well and responsibly, but 1 am increasingly doubtful that this particular company is capable of mining in such a way as to alleviate my concerns or even to follow the law. They began mining with full knowledge that the county considered perrrfd invalid because Mr. Logan had contacted county staff and asked about a year ago if the permit was valid, and according to a timeline from county staff, they said that they believed the permit had lapsed, but this operation proceeded nonetheless. These operators are standing bjy a wildly outdated reclamation plan and a minimal hydrology report When asked to submit a good faith estimate of the cost of reclamation — because that's what SMARA asks of people, is a good faith estimate — they first suggest '167 24,000, a figure that is inadequate to say the least, and the second estimate, 267,000, used deficient methods as determined by a county consultant. . So if good faith produces results that are at best deficient and inadequate, what does business as usual'produce? I would rather not find out Please force this mine to cease operating until it is fully compliant with the county codes, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and all of the relevant laws. Then: is no hurry to incur further damage to the springs, the creek and the integrity of Dry Creek Canyon. For the sake of the canyon and all of the life in it, stop this mining operation immediately and thank you for your attention. CHAIR WILSON: Anybody else who lives on Dry Creek? MS. WHITTLESEY: I'm Susan Whittlesey: Dry Creek Canyon has been my' home for 24 years. I was born and raised in northern California. My husband and I raised two children in Dry Creek Canyon. I was trained as a wildlife biologist and have a deep appreciation for the diversity of. plant and animal life in our canyon. 168 1 I'm shocked by the lack of oversight on the 2 current and past mining operations that have occurred 3 since 1961 in the canyon and the rampant mining that has 4 been going on the past few months. 5 Having read through the thorough county 6 records, it is evident that there is not a valid permit, 7 nor has there been continuous mining oversight or input, 8 dubious documentation of the ongoing mining, and no 9 environmental impact report 10 What is the county waiting for to stop this 11. illegal activity? How bad does it need to get? 12 It is amazing to think that oak woodlands 13 stretched across the valley. The Blue Oak woodland, - 14 which is situated in the foothills, is considered one of 15 the most threatened and least protected ecosystems in 16 California 17 Dry Creek Canyon is a Blue Oak woodland 18 habitat 19 In the Butte County mining permit process, it 20 is required that a detailed topographic site plan be made 21 which delineates all oak trees over four inches on the 22 property. 23 North Continent Land and Timber has certainly 24 ' simplified that step, considering that there are no trees 25 left on the mining site. 111 165 1 s is quoting a staff report, not necessarily him 1 2 specifically — quote, "a number of serious deficiencies 2 3 in site engineering with regard to stability and sediment 3 4 control." And this operation has the capacity to do 4 5 great damage to our environment 5 6 As you consider if and how to allow this 6 7 operation to proceed, I ask that you thoroughly address 7 8 our concerns through an EIR process. B 9 The operator's claim that the principles, 9 10 quote — this is from a letter that we received last 10 11 Sunday, day from the mine. 11 12 Quote, "The principles and the employees of 12 13 North Continent have decades of experience in art and 13 14 cover mining operations and view the New Era as an 14 15 opportunity to demonstrate responsible mining. 15 16 And today I also have seen signs saying that. 16 17 this is about environmental stewardship. 17 19 I've heard them mention that this is state of 1 B 19 the art mining. And so if responsible mining — state of 19 20 the art mining and environmental stewardship would have 20 21 led to extensive site erosion and heavy sedimentation of 21 22 the creek, these operators obviously do not have the 22 23 ability to mine in a manner that safeguards the124 24 environment 25 I'm not opposed to mining at Dry Creek and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 166 growing up, I was always aware that this is an historic use of the area. And I was also rather proud in some instances to be reading about the gold rush and realized that it took place right here. At the same time, I have always been aware of the significant damage -- hydraulic mining, in particular' — caused to Cherokee which we still see today and other locations near where I live. So I'm not opposed to mining in Dry Creek Canyon. I think that it could be done well and responsibly, but 1 am increasingly doubtful that this particular company is capable of mining in such a way as to alleviate my concerns or even to follow the law. They began mining with full knowledge that the county considered perrrfd invalid because Mr. Logan had contacted county staff and asked about a year ago if the permit was valid, and according to a timeline from county staff, they said that they believed the permit had lapsed, but this operation proceeded nonetheless. These operators are standing bjy a wildly outdated reclamation plan and a minimal hydrology report When asked to submit a good faith estimate of the cost of reclamation — because that's what SMARA asks of people, is a good faith estimate — they first suggest '167 24,000, a figure that is inadequate to say the least, and the second estimate, 267,000, used deficient methods as determined by a county consultant. . So if good faith produces results that are at best deficient and inadequate, what does business as usual'produce? I would rather not find out Please force this mine to cease operating until it is fully compliant with the county codes, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and all of the relevant laws. Then: is no hurry to incur further damage to the springs, the creek and the integrity of Dry Creek Canyon. For the sake of the canyon and all of the life in it, stop this mining operation immediately and thank you for your attention. CHAIR WILSON: Anybody else who lives on Dry Creek? MS. WHITTLESEY: I'm Susan Whittlesey: Dry Creek Canyon has been my' home for 24 years. I was born and raised in northern California. My husband and I raised two children in Dry Creek Canyon. I was trained as a wildlife biologist and have a deep appreciation for the diversity of. plant and animal life in our canyon. 168 1 I'm shocked by the lack of oversight on the 2 current and past mining operations that have occurred 3 since 1961 in the canyon and the rampant mining that has 4 been going on the past few months. 5 Having read through the thorough county 6 records, it is evident that there is not a valid permit, 7 nor has there been continuous mining oversight or input, 8 dubious documentation of the ongoing mining, and no 9 environmental impact report 10 What is the county waiting for to stop this 11. illegal activity? How bad does it need to get? 12 It is amazing to think that oak woodlands 13 stretched across the valley. The Blue Oak woodland, - 14 which is situated in the foothills, is considered one of 15 the most threatened and least protected ecosystems in 16 California 17 Dry Creek Canyon is a Blue Oak woodland 18 habitat 19 In the Butte County mining permit process, it 20 is required that a detailed topographic site plan be made 21 which delineates all oak trees over four inches on the 22 property. 23 North Continent Land and Timber has certainly 24 ' simplified that step, considering that there are no trees 25 left on the mining site. 111 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 169 I'm concerned about our aquifers and the springs that are - that we're dependent on for our water, and our wildlife in the canyon is dependent on the creek and springs. I worry about the creek, that water quality is maintained for the aquatic life, the wildlife, the wood ducks, the herons. And we have such an incredible diversity of wildlife In our canyon. We hear the noises of the equipment from the mine. We live a mile and a half away. The traffic has increased tremendously. There's been mention of explosions in December, which I heard outside and wondered what in the world that was. What reclamation will be made to the current mine property? I presently teach kindergarten in Chico and take my Gass to Bidwell Park weekly. The children love our excursions in the park and we watch the changes of the seasons. We watch — in the spring we watch for nesting birds. We see the caterpillars that come out almost towards when we're going off to our summer break. We've seen deer in the canyon, and they get so excited when they see the nature. And some of the children don't have that many opportunities living in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 171 1, years single handedly. 2 In the 22 years I've been doing the road, it 3 started out the %✓orst road in Butte County, elected by 4 the UPS drivers. There are a lot of UPS drivers and Fed 5 Ex and other companies on the road because we have many 6 businesses other than the mine on the road. 7 They are, in fact, the worst drivers, and 1 B think anybody here will tell you that, you know, they are 9 on the clock, they drive fast I don't know if you can 10 blame them or not 11 If you talk to them, they usually slow down 12 for you. As far as anybody in the canyon, when they 13 hired me to do this job, they didn't say, "Kevin, we want 14 you to do it this way. Kevin, we want you to widen the 15 road." Kevin —they just told me, "We want a 16 first-class job" 11 That was the only requirement they asked, and 18 so that's what I've been trying to do. 19 We have people that don't even live on the 20 road that call and complain constantly about any type of 21 job I do, so I'm very careful in what areas 1 work in. 22 A few weeks ago the same person called and the 23 company just — I was laid off. Without work for 10 24 days. 25 When I was doing the area in front of Lucy s 170 city or even moving up from southern California. And it makes me think of how John and Annie Bidwell had the foresight and wisdom and imagination to set aside Bidwell Park for future communities to protect, enjoy, and appreciate.. And I am really astounded at his foresight because that was a long time ago and to see how California is changing, and I'm a witness of it over the years I've lived. He was a miner, but had the integrity and sense for the greater good. This is not the 1860's. Our resources are finite. We have information and knowledge about our world today and need to use wisdom and imagination to embrace wise practices. We cannot afford not to. What kind of precedent are we setting for the future of environmental concerns of Butte County if we don't stop what's going on. Thank you. (Brief pause.) MR. MCDONALD: My name is Kevin McDonald and I'll just do it short and sweet To answer some questions, I'm the person who North Continent has hired to do the road. I have lived on the road for 22 years. I have done the work on the road along with Russ Young, another neighbor, for 22 172 1 house specifically, I went and knocked on their door and 2 1 said, "I'm going to work on your area of the road right 3 here, right now" That's the same thing I did for Rich 4 Meyers. 5 "You want to come outside here and tell me, 6 ' can we run through this, what do you want, what don't you 7 want." B There was an issue with water coming down from 9 the springs on Lucy's property. I said we need to get 10 the water off the road. We'll never get the road good 11 until we do. I can ditch it this way, or I can do it 12 this way. They chose which way they wanted and I did it 13 that way, and it's worked pretty well, hasn't it? No 14 answer. 15 So 1 do make an attempt to cooperate with the 16 neighbors to get along. 17 If anybody has any suggestions on how I do the 18 road, neighbors that live on the road have any 19 suggestions how I do the road, I certainly will take 20 those into consideration and probably do just that. 21 I'm not trying to widen the road. That's why 22 1 took the job. That's why I tried to get it — there 23 was another contractor going to get it. I didn't want a 24 wide road. We haven't made a wide road. 25 Almost everybody in this room right now has 112 • • :7 Transcript of Proceedings 174 1 I'm the person — you all have my number. I'm the person 2 you need to see. 3 If you have any suggestions. I'm more than 4 happy, more than willing to listen and help out in any 5 way, okay. That's all I have to say. Thank you - 6 (Brief pause.) 7 MS. OTTEN: Hi. My name is Linda Otten and my 8 husband and I, Roger, live right besides the mine. Our 9 land is adjacent to the mine. 10 And this is a letter that I sent to the New 11 Era Mine team on February 29, 2008. 12 ''To the New Era Mine team. We would like to 13 share experiences about our interaction with the New Era 14 Mine team. Roger and I moved to the canyon four and a 15 half years ago and fell in love with the beauty of our 16 surroundings. 17 "Upon hearing that the New Era. Mine was about 18 to go into full production, we weren't happy about it 19 because we were afraid our little piece of paradise was 20 going to be compromised. 21 "With that being said, we then took the time 22 to go introduce ourselves to Lee, Frank, Dan and the rest 23 of the New Era Mine team. 24 "We were told at that first introduction if we 25 had any problems, to please let them know and it would be March 13, 2008 115 taken care of. They were true to their word. And so when some of the workers were driving too fast by our home" — which, by the way, is right on the road, and I think Mr. Wilson, you went and saw the mine. When you went there, the rock house on the left-hand side just before you get to the mine, that is our home and you know you go right through our front yard. MR. WILSON: Yes. MS. OTTEN: "They took care of the problem immediately. All of our questions about the project has been answered friendly and courteously by the New Era Mine staff. They have treated our numerous questions promptly and with respect "What we were afraid might have been a detriment to our tranquility has, in itself, become a pleasure. It has been a pleasure to meet all the members of the New Era Mine team. They go out of their way to wave or stop and ask us, 'Is everything okay? "It has been exciting to watch the changes being made to the plant and to see the professionalism of all who work there. Our first worries and fears were unfounded and we are so glad we took the time to meet and get to know the people who are now our neighbors at the New Era Mine." 176 1 Another thing I'd like to say, the hydrology 2 report that they say wasn't done, I don't know — I'm 3 sure you guys got a copy of this. 4 It was a letter from North Continent Land and 5 Timber to the concerned residents. They have a copy of . 6 that in there that we were all shown. 7 And, you know, I'm not a specialist. I'm just B a neighbor that's concerned about what's being happened 9 (sic) and I read that and from my understanding, you 10 know, it looks like a good report. 11 With that being said, my, husband also since 12 the four and a half years we've been there has been 13 maintaining our upper. half of the road and he has spent 14 countless hours on the road, too, and we can say without 15 reservation that the road is in as good a shape as it's 16 ever been since we've moved there. 17When we moved then:, we had a Dodge Intrepid 18 and we were barely able to get in without it scraping the 19 bottom. We've since gotten rid of that and have a pickup ,120 now. But, in retrospect, the road is in very good shape 21 and I know these people are trying to resolve any 22 problems that the neighbors might have. Thank you for 23 your time. 24 CHAIR WILSON: Thank you. At this time we're 25 going to have to have a little break here. The staff and 113 1 173 1 stopped me at one point or another and told me what a 1 2 fantastic job I've done or the road has never been in 2 3 better condition. 3 4 t 4 So I really don't understand when other people 5 come in and say that it wasn't that bad to begin with and 5 6 they haven't done that much, because I've worked b 7 thousands of hours unpaid and hundreds of hours paid on 1. B the road. I, also think that everybody should be heard. 8 9 9 10 1 think that every'problem that everyone has or every to 11 concern that everyone has should be discussed or talked 11 12 13 about. I have been eliminated from the neighborhood 12 13 14 to speak of because they are paying me to do the road. 14 15 So now when there's meetings and stuff, I don't get 15 16 called. I get excluded. 16 17 Other people that dont even rive on the road 17 18 have sent e-mails to the county that I have a copy of 18 19 saying that I should be excluded from all meetings. 19 20 I've lived here longer than that person has 20 21 and I don't want that 1 don't want anything bad to 21 22 happen. I just want to be a part. I pay taxes here. 22 23 I've lived at that house 22 years and I should be part of 23 24 25 the deal. So if anybody has any problems with the road, 24 25 174 1 I'm the person — you all have my number. I'm the person 2 you need to see. 3 If you have any suggestions. I'm more than 4 happy, more than willing to listen and help out in any 5 way, okay. That's all I have to say. Thank you - 6 (Brief pause.) 7 MS. OTTEN: Hi. My name is Linda Otten and my 8 husband and I, Roger, live right besides the mine. Our 9 land is adjacent to the mine. 10 And this is a letter that I sent to the New 11 Era Mine team on February 29, 2008. 12 ''To the New Era Mine team. We would like to 13 share experiences about our interaction with the New Era 14 Mine team. Roger and I moved to the canyon four and a 15 half years ago and fell in love with the beauty of our 16 surroundings. 17 "Upon hearing that the New Era. Mine was about 18 to go into full production, we weren't happy about it 19 because we were afraid our little piece of paradise was 20 going to be compromised. 21 "With that being said, we then took the time 22 to go introduce ourselves to Lee, Frank, Dan and the rest 23 of the New Era Mine team. 24 "We were told at that first introduction if we 25 had any problems, to please let them know and it would be March 13, 2008 115 taken care of. They were true to their word. And so when some of the workers were driving too fast by our home" — which, by the way, is right on the road, and I think Mr. Wilson, you went and saw the mine. When you went there, the rock house on the left-hand side just before you get to the mine, that is our home and you know you go right through our front yard. MR. WILSON: Yes. MS. OTTEN: "They took care of the problem immediately. All of our questions about the project has been answered friendly and courteously by the New Era Mine staff. They have treated our numerous questions promptly and with respect "What we were afraid might have been a detriment to our tranquility has, in itself, become a pleasure. It has been a pleasure to meet all the members of the New Era Mine team. They go out of their way to wave or stop and ask us, 'Is everything okay? "It has been exciting to watch the changes being made to the plant and to see the professionalism of all who work there. Our first worries and fears were unfounded and we are so glad we took the time to meet and get to know the people who are now our neighbors at the New Era Mine." 176 1 Another thing I'd like to say, the hydrology 2 report that they say wasn't done, I don't know — I'm 3 sure you guys got a copy of this. 4 It was a letter from North Continent Land and 5 Timber to the concerned residents. They have a copy of . 6 that in there that we were all shown. 7 And, you know, I'm not a specialist. I'm just B a neighbor that's concerned about what's being happened 9 (sic) and I read that and from my understanding, you 10 know, it looks like a good report. 11 With that being said, my, husband also since 12 the four and a half years we've been there has been 13 maintaining our upper. half of the road and he has spent 14 countless hours on the road, too, and we can say without 15 reservation that the road is in as good a shape as it's 16 ever been since we've moved there. 17When we moved then:, we had a Dodge Intrepid 18 and we were barely able to get in without it scraping the 19 bottom. We've since gotten rid of that and have a pickup ,120 now. But, in retrospect, the road is in very good shape 21 and I know these people are trying to resolve any 22 problems that the neighbors might have. Thank you for 23 your time. 24 CHAIR WILSON: Thank you. At this time we're 25 going to have to have a little break here. The staff and 113 • • Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 177 what have you require it occasionally, so we'll take a ten-minute break. (Brief break.) CHAIR WILSON: Call the meeting to order, please. Okay. We would like to continue hearing from the residents of Dry Creek Road. And we have been paying attention up here, so if you're continuing to repeat what's already been said, it's really. slowing the process down. , MR. MEYERS: My name is Richard Meyers. live at 3503 Dry Creek Road. My wife and I have lived there for 30 years. At the 1982 permit hearings, we opposed the permitting of the mine for environmental reasons, mostly the springs and the creek The springs because there are our sole source of household water, the creek because it's one of the sources for our piece of mind. We feel that tt is a special beautiful creek that must be preserved. The neighbors submitted a petition in 1982 requesting an environmental impact report. In that petition we stated our reasons. They are as valid today as they are then. County staff at that time recommended one and 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21, 22 23 24 2 March 13, 2008 179. 1 MR. NELSON: ' I'm just trying to get a vision 2 of the creek in relationship — 3 MR. MEYERS:, There's the creek rightthere 4 under the bridge. 5 MR. NELSON: Okay. 6 MR. MEYERS:' its on the lower part of it 7` here. 8 MR. NELSON: Okay, got it. Go slow. Thank 9 you. 10 Can you go through them one at a time? How 11 many do you have? 12 MR. MEYERS: I just have seven, although I do 13 have a full CD with probably 20 or 30 pictures on it I 14 can give you a copy of and you can get a look at further 15 pictures. - 16 Okay. That's the mine, the plant that's been 17 _ erected in the last two months with no permission from 18 the county as far as — you know, not even worrying about 19 what the issue is going to be, "Let's just go ahead and 20 put it up and maybe we can get by with it" 21 MR. NELSON: Next one. , 22 MR. MEYERS: That's a — I would like you to 23 maybe compare this with your picture, your aerial photo 24 from 2006 from the staff report and you can see what's 25 . been done back there, if you compare the before and 180 they were overruled. I believe the reasoning for not requiring one at that time was that the mine was envisioned as a small opeiation and Mr. Logan was having trouble coming up with the reclamation bond and he was only permitted for 20 yards a day., The present operation bears no resemblance to that vision. If Chris can please start the pictures. These are some aerial photographs that I took of the mine, I forget when it was exactly. MR. NELSON: These are recent, then? MR. MEYERS: Very recent February 29th of this year. The yellow line was where — trying to show where the creek is. This is not the scale that was envisioned in the 1982 permit I don't see how you can even think that this was the scale that was envisioned in 1982: This is a plant that's gone in in the last two months just because they can. We're going to go full speed ahead. We're going to ask for forgiveness, not pernission. That's the way they've operated under this whole operation is "Stop us if were doing something 5 wrong, if you can catch us." 1 after. 2 They've just denuded that whole section of 3 land. There is other pictures that -are included that l 4 don't have copies of where they ve taken and pushed stuff 5 up to the banks of Dry Creek and it's fallen in, trees, 6 etcetera. 7 And these water retention ponds. I'm not 8 really sure how you decide where that water is going, you 9 know. 10 The bottom one is supposed to be a storm water 11 retention pond, and they can apparently discharge from 12 that one. So, I don't know. How do you get water from . 13 one pond to another? And who says where that water is 14 coming from once it goes into the creek? ' 15 Is there any other questions about any of the 16 pictures? I'was a little air sick at the time I was 17 taking them, so it wasn't great fun. 18 And I don't know where this color is coming 19 from. It ain'treal pretty and it sure isn't natural. 20 But there's a day — yeah. There's a Gay suspension 21 that gets in the creek from this mine. 22 The normal runoff from the winter rains gives 23 a muddy look to the creek. When these guys have. 24 discharged into the creek, it's a grayish silty clay 25 suspension. 114 L` Transcript of Proceedings is March 13, 2008 183 starting up an operation and at some point there will be siltation turbidityin the creek I would then call the California Department of Fish and Game or the state Regional Water Quality Control Board and they would come out There would be ` discussions back and forth and usually the mine would wind down. This would go on — this went on probably three to five times over the span of time between 1982 and 1991. In 1991, there was another attempt at mining. He got some other investors to mine and there was another pollution - Mr. Dykstra from the state Regional Water Quality Control Board came out and the process was started where Mr. Logan decided it wasn't feasible to pay the $3,000 a year for the waste water discharge permit, so he asked that his permit be rescinded. Its been mentioned before in the proceedings from that that the board states that the mine was inactive for two years. It doesn't get much clearer than that Then after this 1991 incident there's been very Pttle activity on the road or on the Logan property - Mr. Logan moved out, was a contract mail W 181 1 I've lived there 30 years. I've seen these - ] 2 discharges into the creek. I've reported them to the 2 3 Department of Water Resources and the Fish and Game every 3 4 time they happened, and 1 can tell you the difference 4 5 between the two. MR. NELSON: The creek is between the road and 6 6 between '91 and the present day. 7 7 the mine? e 8 - MR. MEYERS: Yes. The creek — the yellow 6 9 line is the edge of the creek As you can see, they are 9 to right up to the edge. 10 11 There's — I just wonder if they had come to 11 12 you before they did an this work whether they could have 12 13 gotten that dose to that creek. 13 14 Go ahead. That shows the creek a little bit 14 15 better. And that pile there has grown exponentially 15 16 since this happened. I've been up there and seen an- 16 17 excavator working in that pond, if you want to call it ]7 18 that, this upper end. 18 19 That's another question. Where is the water, 19 20 coming from in that pond? I think its seeping from our 20 21 springs and how can that be said to not affect our 21 22 springs? I think it really has to — 22 23 23 MR. NELSON: Your water — your springs with game Board and pursue it that way. 24 literally come right out of the mountain. When you say 24 25 springs, its just like it's a formation different — 25 is March 13, 2008 183 starting up an operation and at some point there will be siltation turbidityin the creek I would then call the California Department of Fish and Game or the state Regional Water Quality Control Board and they would come out There would be ` discussions back and forth and usually the mine would wind down. This would go on — this went on probably three to five times over the span of time between 1982 and 1991. In 1991, there was another attempt at mining. He got some other investors to mine and there was another pollution - Mr. Dykstra from the state Regional Water Quality Control Board came out and the process was started where Mr. Logan decided it wasn't feasible to pay the $3,000 a year for the waste water discharge permit, so he asked that his permit be rescinded. Its been mentioned before in the proceedings from that that the board states that the mine was inactive for two years. It doesn't get much clearer than that Then after this 1991 incident there's been very Pttle activity on the road or on the Logan property - Mr. Logan moved out, was a contract mail W 115 182 184 It's like a —I've got a spring 1 carrier out of Chico for probably 10 years. His kids — 1 MR. MEYERS: that's a sandstone formation. The 2 once in a while some kids would move in for a while, 2 box built up there trickles out of two or three places. I get two 3 they'd move out It was vacant a good share of the time 3 water 4 between '91 and the present day. 4 gallons a minute 24 hours a day. MR. NELSON: Leads into a tank and you've got 5 In early summer last year things seemed to be 5 6 starting up again. The stream was polluted again with 6 water. MR. MEYERS: Leads into a tank and that's my 7 mine residue. We went to the county and asked what was 7 8 water for my house. I've never had a problem. The B 9 going on. We were told we'd have to take out a complaint 9 springs don't vary hardly any through the year. I mean, l0 notice for them to go out and investigate. We figured it 10 the flow is two gallons a minute, and just about another example of a fly by night outfit that 11 everybody in the canyon has about a two gallon a minute 11 12 was just we've seen before. They'd started up, they'd do their 12 13 flow. There's — as you get further up canyon, 13 Thing up there and find that it wasn't worth their money , So we decided to 14 there's some nicer bigger — I call them nicer, bigger 14 15 and effort and then they'd be gone. just let it go until — or if there. was more pollution in 15 springs that flow maybe five or six gallons a minute. 16 the creek we'd see somebody about it 16 After the permit was granted in 1982, we could We deded we�d wait andthen et in touch 17 ' always tell when Mr. Logan started mining because there the warden or the gert ality Control 18 would be a spike of traffic in the road and then they 18 19 with game Board and pursue it that way. 19 would start polluting the creek. 20 Soon we noticed that there was turbidity in 20 The process here is Mr. Logan's found 21 the creek again. We contacted the county again. This 21 investors for the mine, started up mining, then they would eventually dirty the 22 was probably within a month and this was right about the 22 eventually we would — 23 time that Josh Brennan went out, the warden, and we heard 23 24 creek They cannot — they have not been able to 24 the statement that he said that it was a small, well-run 25 operate in the full time that I've lived there without 25 operation. 115 0 • Transcript of Proceedings 185 1 very soon after that we get to the point that 2 we are today where the county issued their Order to 3 Comply and we're into this process. 4 The increase in the traffic on the road is 5 unbelievable. 6 It went from a trip a day by each' of the seven 7 people beyond me to the traffic of a major street in an 8 industrial area. 9 There's nonstop cement trucks some days when 10 they were building this project out. Nonstop gravel 11 trucks when they were laying gravel on the road. There's 12 large trucks hauling in who knows what, all of the 13 different equipment for this mining operation. And then 14 all of the commute of the workers and the owners -of the 15 mine. 16 1 can'tsee how anyone can see what's gone on 17 here and try to fold it into the mom and pop operation 18 envisioned in the 1982 permit 19 The partners in this operation all aware of 20 the regulations that pertain to mining. Mr. Logan has a - 21 copy of his pemtit 22 Before their half-hearted attempts recently, 23 they made no efforts to comply with either the conditions 24 the county required in the. original permit or the 25 regulations at the state and Federal level that control 186. March 13f-2008 187` 1 mining. 2 The only way I see to make this happen is to 3 revoke the old permit and require a new one. This would 4 solve all of the problems that you're talking about of 5 trying to ft this old permit into today's rules and 6 regulations and make things mesh together somehow. 7 I'm sure with the increased scope of today's 8 operation the increased requirements for environmental 9 review 25 years later, this is the only. option. 10 We've been in touch with the California state 11 Department of Fish and Game biologists and the National 12 Atmospheric and.Oceanicadministration personnel and 13 there is some thought that Dry Creek could,be eligible to 14 be listed as critical habitat for the spring run salmon 15 and steelhead. ' 16 Another smaller creek, Little Dry Creek, which 17 comes off of Williams Road, is listed as critical 18 habitat 19 There is a huge•success story in Butte Creek 20 fish population which are the salmon and steelhead that 21 go to the ocean and come back. They ve got more fish in 22 Butte Creek than Butte Creek can handle right now in the 23 spring run salmon., 24 1 feel that this creek could be an element in 25 that — in alleviating that problem with more fish in 1 mining. " 2 In my letter to the Planning Commission, I 3 took each of the conditions for approval and showed how 4 Mr. Logan has failed to comply with them. County staff 5 has done the same. 6 For these operators to get into December with 7 no effort to contain the runoff from stones and the B pushing of dirt and debris up and into Dry Creek shows 9 their complete disregard for the environment in general, 10 and Dry Creek in particular. 11 We often have heavy rains in December. 12 Mr. Logan is well aware of that, having grown up in this 13 area. ' 14 If not for the inspection and abatement notice 15 brought about by neighbors expressing their concern, Dry 16 Creek would have been much more silted up with the one 17 early rain that we had. These people have shown that 18 they don't care. 19 The county staff report shows how there has 20 been no effort to comply over the years and how the new 21 partners are trying to twist everything they can to get 22 to operate under the old invalid permit. 23 As neighbors, we are aware that Mr. Logan is a 24 miner. All we're asking is that he mine according to the 25 law and obey the rules and regulations that apply to 188 1 Butte Creek than they can handle. 2 1 mention this just as another reason that 1 3 believe that this incarnation of the New Era Mine must be 4 subject to an environmental impact report and be required 5 to be get a new permit. 6 There's been some worry expressed by county 7 staff that if a new permit is required, the new partners 8 might art and run, leaving the property in its degraded 9 state with no reclamation. 10 1 realize that because these operators have 11 made no efforts to post a reasonable reclamation bond, 12 that this is a concern. This also shows their attempts 13 to get by with using the 1982 permit against the intent 14 of the laws regulating mines. 15 1 believe that because of the abatement notice 16 from the state Regional Water Quality Control Board and - 17 the cleanup that was required, the property is probably 18 in as good a shape as it will be for years come. So 1 19 say if they are going to cut and run, so be it. 20 If this mine is as profitable as they would 21 have us believe, and with gold at the all-time high price 22 it currently is, surely they can afford to mine in a 23 reasonable fashion, paying attention to all the current 24 rules and regulations. 25 Please do the right thing. Revoke the old 116 • Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2: 189 permit, require a new permit and an environmental impact report. Thank you. I just have a couple of points•that have been brought up that as far as clarification on this 20 yards thing. Using their figures, 20 yards is 14 by 14 by 3. A hundred thousand yards is 5,000 times that 5,000 times that. So you're expanding this 20 yards into a , hundred thousand yards all of a sudden. It's just unbelievable to me. Number two, is why are they doing this after the fact instead of before the fact? Why didn't they come up front and take care of these things, if they are such wonderful neighbors and trying to be friendly neighbors? And how do you fold four books of reclamation plan into a one-page reclamation plan. And all the jobs that they are talking about — how many are actually going to be created up here? Three, five, if that I don't think you're talking about a major employer in Butte County. Thank you. That's more of the aerial photos. This is about 30 of them, I think. So, just if you're interested. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 190 March 13,2008 191 1 Mr. Noland on the phone. They said they'd be willing to 2 pave the road for the first 750 feet up until it goes 3 down the ditch, you know, a slight area there. 4 1 am agreeable to that. I think it would 5 alleviate my problem. I can open my windows again. 6 They asked me if that was all my concerns. My. 7 concern are the same as the other citizens, the aquifer 6 and such as. 9 We have a 400 foot well there: We "draw all l0 our drinking water and house utility water from that, and 11 if something happens 10 our aquifer — which it has never 12 been proved where it comes from. I have no idea. I'm 13 not a geologist. 14 1 think some sort of study on where our waters 15 come from so we won't be impacted will be made, and at 16 the cost of the mine, not us. 11 Why should we have to pay for something 18 somebody else might damage? I would expect to do it for 19 them if I was shutting their water off. 20 So I hope that the Planning Commission now 21 won' make the same mistake that the other Planning 22 Commission did and put more teeth into these rules and 23 call for an Elk for this situation. 24 And if they do put in a road, I'd like to 25 limit the amount of trucks that go in there as far as 192 CHAIR WILSON: Anybody else that is a resident of the Dry Creek Road who would like to speak? (Brief. pause.) MR. SWEENEY: I'm Peter Sweeney. I live at the comer of Messilla Valley Road and Dry Creek Road. And for the last quite a few years, I took care of the road with a different type of gravel. Its from Robinson's quarry and it's a stone and as the trucks and everything roll over it, it doesn't break down into dust. Right now they ve put on a rock from Meridian which used to be old Green Rock Quarry, and its a basalt. When the trucks roll over it, it turns to dust and powder. They put on about four inches, oh, probably three weeks to four weeks ago. It is.now powdered. The other evening a gentleman came out there and he scraped the road, scraped the surface rocks off. He couldn't bring the rocks off from the bottom, so a large section was dust. Now, I erected a fence — I live on Messilla Valley Road. I erected a six-foot high cedar fence to keep the dust out of our place. I still don't think it's going to do it, but there is a possibility it might. 1 talked to Mr. Ogle yesterday evening and 1 they use it for a staging area. 2 All the big trucks, sometimes as high as five 3 and six, they pull up with low -boys, a dozer on there, 4 they unload that; they leave their engines running for a 5 half hour, 45 minutes. 6 Many times I've came out to ask them to shut 7 it off. "Oh, I'll only be 10 more minutes," and then 8" they stay there another 15 minutes. EPA doesn't like 9 that anyway. 10 1 I'd like to see that alleviated. Find a ' 11 different staging area further up the road where there 12 are no houses dose to the road and the'noise won't 13 bother anybody.. I thank you for your time. 14 CHAIR WILSON: I have two more cards, Darlene 15 Meyers and Clarence Hasty. Are they here? Would.you 16 like to speak at this time? 17 (Brief pause.) 18 MR. HASTY: My name is Clarence Hasty and I am 19 a resident of Dry Creek, better known by my friend as 20 Tom. 21 1 really can' add a lot of technical detail 22 or legaF: l details that's already been presented to you 23 today,'but I can address some of the moral issues. 24 1 want to thank Tim Snellings and the staff, 25 the planning staff, for just a great job of bringing all 117 r • • Transcript of Proceedings 193 1 this data to us today. 1 2 2 And I want to thank Mr. Moran and Mr. Will for 3 setting the legal tenor for this meeting, because this is 3 4 where it's really all going to boil down to, is 45 5, interpretation of the law and not so much the detail of 6 the law, but respect for the law. 6 7 We establish laws not to take away freedoms, 7 8 but to guarantee equal sharing of freedoms among the e 9 citizens of a society. Many times political, commercial, 9 10 special interests and greed get in the way of this 10 11 balance of equal sharing of rights. 1112 12 In the case of the New Era Mine and the 13 citizens of Dry Creek, we are being trampled on by 13 14 commercial interest. 14 15 15 Why have they just suddenly became good 16 neighbors? Why the sudden rush to compliance? Where 16 17 were they when this first started, these good neighbor 17 18 19 attitudes? Twenty-six years have passed since the 18 19 20 issuance of this first permit Now, whether it is a land 20 21 use perk or a mining permit, that is a technical 21 22 23 detail. Much as happened in the last 25 years in our 22 23 24 progress towards environmental protection and civilian 24 25 rights. 25 194 1 In light of the alleged violations we've heard 2 today, and other information we've shared today, I can 3 only come to the observation that they are not operating 4 under a valid permit. 5 In fact, they are operating in a mode of catch 6 me if you can. This to me is morally wrong. It is not 7 complying with the intent of the laws that we established 8 and so, therefore. I feel the permit is invalid. 9 The only way to rectify this and serve the 10 interests of the environment and the citizens of Butte 11 County are to invalidate the current permit and start due 12 process of a new permit. This will rectify all the 13 problems we're facing today. 14 We have no problems it they operate within the 15 law and with current regulations. This is not the 16 California of 1849 and that gold rush. This is the sane 17 green aware times of the 21st century. Thank you very 18 much. 19 CHAIR WILSON: Anyone else that lives on Dry 20 Creek Road that would like to speak? 21 MS. COOKE: I just wanted to — Lucy Cooke. 1 22 wanted to clarity about the hydrology report, for one 23 thing, because — I'll be more coherent this time. 24 Obviously Ron Logan did a hydrology report in 25 1982. 1 think its considerably inadequate. March 13, 2008 195 For one thing, hydrology has advanced considerably in 25 years, which is one reason why I want a new one. But also I was really surprised. I've talked to a lot of hydrologists and very sadly — and 1 was really surprised to say that the person who pays for the hydrology report — this is real. They tell me you get what you pay for. mean, in other words, if I'm paying for it, . 'I get what I want If the miners pay for it, they get what they want I thought science was science, but hydrology is open to interpretation of facts. But I do feel this firm in Davis, HydroFocus, is really big. We — this is a really small thing for them to do, but they would do it And their reputation would be at stake. They wouldn't — you know, l mean, however they would find about our springs, but our springs are critical. But 1 wanted to emphasize why I felt Ron Logan's hydrology report of 1982 — of course he didn't have much money to spend on one then. He did the best he could, but I think it's very inadequate to today. And one thing 1 just wanted to mention again, thinking about the creek and why everyone worries about the creek was do you want your kids or your grandkids 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 196 playing in a creek that looks like gray pea soup? Now, that is how it frequently was whenever Ron Logan was working and how it was off times when this mine was processing. They haven't been processing and they have new equipment I have no idea what it will be like, but I wouldn't want — you know, that's a real concern, you know. One other thing I wanted to mention is you all have CDs of the mine pictures. I think they should have been with your information. You don't? They would have been in a manila envelope that was given to you well before the meeting. Yes, yes. They should be in there. MR. NELSON: No CDs in there. MS. COOKS Thats surprising that someone took them out because I — we put them in. I can't imagine that (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) MS. COOKE: I have no idea. Another thing that hasn't been brought up, and I suppose its picky. You saw our road. We like our road. It's a simple pleasure, a country road. If these people are going to be good 118 • • Transcript of Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 2 2 2 2 191 neighbors — they brought in this huge piece of equipment You wouldn't believe how big it was, and they could have alerted us. They could have had us out there when they butchered our trees to make room for it, particularly where — this was a long whole road, but along our road, it is just this small easement and that is not neighborly. Actually, I was known for not wanting to take an adversarial position in the beginning. I mentioned that over and over again when dealing with, You know, the county or Phil Woodward, but that infuriated me. They should dean up the trees neatly. MR. MEYERS: tMy name is Richard Meyers again. I want to make it dear that these guys haven't improved the road that much. Russ Young and Kevin McDonald had worked on the road long before this new mining operation had started and a was in pretty good shape. p We had gone together and had put some gravel down, so its not like they ve put out all of this great 2 effort and expense to make our road a beautiful Place 3 anymore. 4 1 mean, this is all for them and fixing the 5 problems that they caused by running cats up and down our 1 2 3 4 5 6 7- 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 2 2 '198 road, track laying equipment up and down our road. If you've ever been on a dirt lane after a cat has been over it, you know what I'm talking about. It's like — (noises.) So they fixed that. I'm not saying that's still like that. They fixed that. Thank you. But, you know, they caused it, too. So I just wanted to make clear that about the road. CHAIR WILSON: All right. We can't keep doing 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this. Okay. We will give New Era Mine an opportunity to refute this and we don't need to, rehash everything, we've already been over it, but we would like to give you an opportunity to reply to the people of Dry Creek. MR. NELSON: And other supporters, too. I don't believe there have been — CHAIR WILSON: Well, yeah. I understand everybody else who wants to speak is basically a supporter of the mine. MR. WILL: Okay. I appreciate everybody coming here and making their comments and I think its good to have a public forum on these kinds of things. We have just a few points that we wanted to mention, sort of — I'm song. Blair Will. Thank you. March 13, 2008 199 There's been a lot of discussion about the recent work at the mine, the number of vehicles. There was some discussion about a hundred thousand cubic yard pile of dirt there. We wanted to point out that ail of that work has been done pursuant to the directives from state agencies. The — North Continent is not actively mining that site right now. They have been doing that work in an effort to become compliant, particularly with the Cleanup and Abatement Order. So that has not been mining, that has been work along those lines. With regard to the Cleanup and Abatement Order, the Cleanup and Abatement Order has been satisfied. Its — the deficiencies there have been ' cured. My understanding is Phil Woodward for the Regional Water Board is here. I don't know if he wants to say something. I was just going to kind of ask him what his thought was, number one, with regard to the current status of the Abatement Order, and, number two, the condition of the mine. Phil, are you here? 3 MR. WOODWARD: Yeah, I'm here. 4 MR. WILL: If you wouldn't mind just telling 5 us a little bit about what the status of the Abatement 200 1 Order is. I 2 MR. WOODWARD: Good evening — or afternoon. 3 I'm Phil Woodward. I'm a senior engineering geologist 4 with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control 5 Board. 6 1 have been involved in this mine since August 7 of this summer when I started receiving the first 8 complaints of some problems up there. 9 When I, first inspected the mine in August, it to was a relatively small operation. 11 The water quality issues that I was concerned 12 with at the time were relatively minor, and we did ask 13 the New Era Mine to apply for an industrial storm water 14 permit, and that would require the to put in various +" 15 what we call best management practices to control erosion 16 and sediment from the site, and that would have been 17 adequate at that time. i g When we went out there with the county in 19 early December, things had changed considerably. 20 All the vegetation had been removed from the 21 site. A lot of earth had been moved, disrupted, and 22 there was a lot of loose material been pushed down into 23 the riparian area. That caused us great concern. 24 At that point, we were concerned enough that 25 we issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order" 119 • C. C. Transcript of Proceedings 201 1 That order required them to stabilize that 2 site, implement proper erosion control measures, and 3 hopefully get it done before the big storms hit and we 4 ended up with l alf that mountain in the creek. 5 And to their credit, they stepped up to the 6 plate. They got in there and they did a lot of work. It 7 wasn't as rapid, perhaps, as we would have liked, but it 8 was one of those instances where it was raining hard and 9 if you get a cat in there when its raining, you'll sink 10 it and then you have bigger problem. 11 Regardless, we took water samples on a couple 12 of the inspections I did, upstream and downstream. These 13 were during storm events. 14 We were unable to find a great deal of 15 turbidity coming off the site. 16 When I walked the site — I think you remember 117. that wind storm we had in January. They had things 1 B buttoned up fairly well. They were controlling their 19 surface water fairly well, getting it around, diverting 20 it around the edge of the site so it wasn't coming over 21 the bare faces. 22 The next inspection I did in February, they 23 progressed further. There was still a lot of earth and 24 material that needed to be dealt with and the pond 25 embankments. 1 2 3 202 We were concerned about their failure. If they would have failed, we would end up with those in the creek. March 13, 2008 203 1 the operation, they have requested that they submit a new 2 report of waste discharge to us, which is an application 3 for one of the permits we issue. 4And that issue — that permit, it you will, is 5 called waste discharge requirements, and it will identify 6 more clearly how they have to operate their processing - 7 operations in order to prated water quality. That will mean they cannot discharge their processed water into the creek. They'd have to recycle it or let it percolate. Storm water, under their current permit, if they implement best management practices. which they are well on their way to doing, can be discharged in the creek. So that's our current progress at the site. ; I'm here to answer any questions you may have. MR. NELSON: And you're familiar with SMARA, t: My last inspection was yesterday. They've 5 come a long way. They have hydroseeded the area. When 6 that germinates, that will help stabilize ft. They've 7 laid down a lot of jute mat in areas where there was a 8 lot of loose material that would get washed into the 9 creek. 10 There's still a little work to be done on the pond embankments. There's — they are just getting dried out now where they feel they can safely get their equipment on. They will be pulling out the loose material that was cascaded over the edge of the bank. At this point, their progress is consistent with our Cleanup and Abatement Order. We'll probably leave that on to get them through the winter and make sure those pond embankments get stabilized. Regardless whether we leave the Order on or not, they are still covered by the industrial storm water permit and that is what controls their ability to deal with the storm water and erosion and sediment from the sNe_ We have also — due to essentially the size of 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 10 11 } 12 13 14' 15 16 17 19 then? 19 MR, WOODWARD: I am not an authority on SMARA. 20 I've worked with it IVe worked with mines for 20 21 years, but don't pin me down to SMARA regulations. 22 MR. NELSON: Well, I was just going to ask 23 what the — 24 MR. WOODWARD: You can give ft a try, if I 5 know the answer. 204 I 1 MR. NELSON: This isn't a typical way to - I 2 mean, this isn't a typical process. 3 1 mean, l guess what I really want to ask you' 4 is we should be starting this process — I mean, we 5 should be updating our reclamation plan, we should be 6 looking at the environment a little more closely now 7 since we're 26 years up the road- s • And I guess it's more of an opinion than 9 anything else since you don't know the law that well, but 10 that was going to be my question. 11 MR. WOODWARD: Well, that's what we're doing 12 with our waste discharge requirements. 13 We had rescinded those back in 1991 at the 14 request of Ron Logan when vie were told that — and we 15 have copies of those letters that he was no longer going 1'6 to be mining. 17 We are relooking at those requirements as we 18 redevelop this new permit ow, look into CEQA again is 19 Whether you, you kn 20 up to the county's authority. 21 MR. LELAND: Just some comments about the 22 proximity of the settling ponds to Dry Creek. 23 Are you familiar with that, is that an issue 24 you could give us some comfort on or alarm? 25 MR. WOODWARD:. Well, I can give you a little 120 • March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings 207 205 1 you would ask for is a hydrogeological report to evaluate 1 of both. I first saw how dose those embankments z the potential impacts on those springs. That would be an 2 3 When were to Dry Creek, I was very concerned. 3' appropriate thing to ask. MS. LAMBERT: I don't know the location in 4 When we went out there on our December 4• 5 relation to the mine. So that's a matter that I don't 5 inspection, there were tension cracks in those 6 • embankments. , 6 7 know — MR. WOODWARD: That's why I wouldn't, you 7 It was my opinion that they were prone to B know, put forth an answer at this time. But if I was B failure. They were really dose to the creek And that time, several — a large reach 9 downstream —yeah, it's a concern. 9 N to since of those embankments have been rebuilt. And by 10 MR. LELAND: One more question. The old whether its 20 yards of native material or 20 11 "rebuilt," they've been compacted and theywe been been erosion control measures put 11 12 permit, yards of finished material, still covers the entire — 12 13 engineered. There's down on a lot of it, but there's stilt a little more to 13 the same surface area. So what we're really talking about is the 14 14 go. Is that the best place to put ponds that I 15 difference in rate of the mining. 15 16 could find in California? No. You're right on the edge 16 Would that -1 mean, can you conclude from the impacts on the 17 of a pond — or the creek. Can they be built appropriately to protect 17 la that that fact, that environmental water are going to be the same one way or the other or 18 19 water quality and not fail? Yes. And I think if you . 19 could the difference in rate affect the springs 20 look at the work that's been done to date, it's night and 20 downstream? MR. WOODWARD: Again, I don't have enough 21' day. LAMBERT: I think maybe you might be a 21 22 information to answer what their impacts might be down — 22 MS. 23 on springs down the way. 23 person I can ask this. 2 9 As far as impacts to say how they would 24 There was a tetter we received from someone about their water supply from their 25 ° operate it to protect the water quality, there really 25 who was concerned 206 208 that always had — I can read it, if you 1 wouldn't be much difference. Our requirements in the 1 spring they 2 permit that we issued then would be very similar. 2 want 3 I know you're trying to get some answers, but 3 But they have a holding tank for household 4 1 just don't have them and they are not within my 4 water that always remained full with the overflow feeding 5 agency's jurisdiction. 5 the meadow below. "But since January of this year and well into 6 MR. LELAND; No, I'm just fishing. 6 7 the third month, with the expanded mining operation, our '1 MR. WOODWARD: Anything else? "MR.WILL I'm just going to wrap this up 8 water tank now has less than two feet of water and just B 9 pretty quickly: a couple of last points. 9 enough to cover the outflow valve." 10 1977 to 1982, Mr. Logan did have a permit then 10 And they are concerned that the mine may have 11 at that time before the 1982 permit under discussion 11 already tapped into their aquifer and that they are 12 right now, and he mined pursuant to that valid mining. 12 digging directly under it Is that a possibility or , 13 permit all 18 acres of the site, and so we need to keep 13 concern? 14 MR. WOODWARD: I can't answer that because 1 14 that in mind. 15 have not studied that situation; and I wouldn't want to 15 During that period of time, there was never and there was never any notice of 16 put forth an opinion without some data or something to 16 any notice of violation brought to him by the county for the period of 17 back it up. 5o at this point I wouldn't reach out 17 violation 1B time up until the present, 31 years, of operating the is there. 19 MS. LAMBERT: Would a hydrology report answer 19 mine. 20 You mentioned the area of the mine. The area 20 something like that? There are people in my business 21 of the mine, both under the reclamation plan and the 21 MR. WOODWARD: 22 — I'm what we cal a professional geologist registered 22. negative declaration, is 18 acres. So the entitlement is a mining right over the • 23 with the State of California plus a certified engineering 23 24 entire 18 acre parcel. 24 geologist, plus a registered hydrogeologist 25 Somebody here mentioned that its a small mine 25 people like me can do that work, yes. So what 121 • • Transcript .of Proceedings 209 1 , or had been a small mine. Even at 18 acres, it's still a 2 pretty small mine. It's probably one of the smallest 3 mines in California. So, yes, it is a small mine. 41 want to talk briefly about the negative 5 declaration. You have a copy of it, I'm sure. You'll. 6 note that it says placer mine with cut and cover 7 ' reclamation, 18 acres. They are fully entitled for all 8 18 acres. 9 The negative declaration was adopted. That's 10 true. And we want to point out, by the way, that the 11 conditions of approval that are on the permit are not all 12 encompassed on the negative declaration. 13 The negative declaration imposes the 14 mitigation measures only 1 through 4 and 6 through 15 of 15 the conditions of approval. 16 And they are pretty straight forward and we've 17 done them all. 16 Provide on-site fire protection. Obtain a 19 streambed alteration agreement Submit a current report 20' of waste water discharge. Settling ponds to be located 21 above the hundred -year floodplain. All done. 22 Preserve as much vegetation as possible to 23 promote ground stability and reduce erosion. Weave done 29 that. Weave also hydroseeded to add additional 25 vegetation. - . 210 March 13, 2008 211 1 these mitigation measures as I have just described was 2 adopted, was certified as CEQA compliant 3 There is, as I'm sure you all well know, a 4 mechanism by which a CEQA determination can be appealed 5 and is subject to subsequent action for writ of 6 administrative mandamus or what have you. 7 Certain of these neighbors said they oppose 8 the EIR — or the lack of an EIR in 1982. None of them 9 appealed and the CEQA statute of limitations ran 27 years 1 o ago. So that entitlement is fully certified and 11 approved. 12 With regard to the 20 cubic yards and whether 13 or not that's output or disturbance on the site. 14 Mr. Logan came to the podium earlier today, 15 and he said that his understanding when the approval was 16' granted to him was that it was going to be 20 cubic yards 17 per day output 18 Regional Water Quality Control Board inspected 19 the site in 1962 and in their report described 20 cubic 20 yards as the, quote, "Maximum output" 21 We have here a letter from the Department of 22 Mines and Geology to Mr. Steven Streeter, and it's,dated 23 March 23, 1982. , 24 Item number 4 says, "The idea of a staged 25 operation starting at 20 tons per day increasing in 1 Limit of operation in terms of hours, 6 atm. 2 to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday. We've done that. 3 Erosion control measures. Yes. Improve Dry Creek Road 4 from Messilla Valley Road. Yes. Slope stabilization, 5 stream bank stabilization. Yes. 6 Design backslope to withstand earthquake 7 magnitude 6.5. Yes. Undertake reclamation immediately e once each open pit mine has been processed. Yes. Meet 9 OSHA guidelines for storage use of plantables. Yes. 10 Retain areas not to be mined in the natural 11 state. Yes. Utilize sediment ponds to contain the 12 discharge of sediment to Dry Creek. Yes. 13 So were entirely consistent with the terms of 14 the CEQA approval which was granted in 1982. 15 Importantly, you'll note that none of those 16. mitigation measures which were adopted under the negative 17 declaration had anything to do with scope, phasing or 18 anything having a relationship to what percentage of the 19 parcel could be mined. ' 2 p The entitlement is 18 acres, mining on the 21 entire parcel in any fashion. 22 Some people said they want to see an EIR. 23 This project has been approved and entitled under an 24 approval granted in 1982 by this body. 25 And the negative declaration at that time with 212 1, stages should be accompanied by periodic monitoring to 2 determine if the operator is capable of going to a, 3 quote, 'larger scale of production. - 4 Finally, if you look over here to — its my 5 right, your left, you will see the staff findingsfirom 6 April 8, 1982. 7 If you look — and maybe I can just read this i 8 to you, if you'll bear with me. 9 "As a result of the field trip, Mr. Logan to tentatively agreed to a three-phase plan to expand the 11 mining operation. Phase 1 would restrict him to a 12 maximum output of 20 cubic yards per day, which is the 13 limitation on his current permit from the Department of 14 Fish and Game." 15 Then we talked about Phase 2. And Phase 3, as 16 1 said earlier, we never got there. 11 So we're still under Phase 1 and our maximum 18 output allowed under our permit and allowed under our 19 reclamation plan and allowed under the CEQA determination 20 is 20 cubic yards per day of output. 21 1 ward to just leave you with a couple of 22 points that were raised by the county with regard to this 23 most recent order. The county has asked for some things 24- in their Order and North Continent is amenable to a lot 25 of it 122 • C March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings 215 it's an allowed use or whether it's something else, would be an additional entitlement, kind of like a different flavor of entitlement obtained from the county. , These guys are saying, okay, the deal — the problem was that at the time there was an issue with regard to blasting, and blasting in the zoning designation at the time in '82 would not have been an allowed use. And so at that point it was like, okay, if you want to blast, then that is not an allowed use under the current zoning designation and you will need to seek a use permit, and Mr. Logan agreed not to use blasting on site. MS. LAMBERT: Under this permit that's in existence or that was approved indicates no blasting. MR. WILL: That's correct There's no blasting and no one is proposing that any blasting take place. MS. LAMBERT: And that after Phase 1, it would have to come back for review, which — MR. WILL: Thats correct If Mr. Logan, who obviously was the recipient of the permit, if he chose to increase or he wished to increase daily output beyond what was called Phase 1 under this approval process, 20 cubic yards per day, then he would need to go back to the 1 213 1 1 Updated financial assurance. North Continent 1 2 will do that Sign a statement of responsibility. North 2 3 Continent will do that Reimburse the county for 3 4 expenses related to the processing of the Order. North 4 5 Continent will do that Hire engineers and consultants 5 6 to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval on 6 7 the current and valid permit. North Continent will do 7 B that as well. B 9 9 North Continent will not seek a new permit, 10 10 and North Continent will not go through a reclamation to 11 plan amendment process. 11 12 12 But we think we're meeting you more than - 13 13 halfway with agreeing to these sox items, and we think 13 14 that the entitlements that we have are current, valid, 14 15 and allow us to mine 18 acres up to 250,000 cubic yards 15 16 disturbance annually and up to 20 cubic yards per day 16 17 output Thank you. 17 18 MS. LAMBERT: Can I ask you — you made a 16 19 comment earlier, and I just want to, you know, understand 19 20 the distinction when you said this is not a use permit 20 21 its a mining permit 21 22 MR. WILL: That's correct 22 23 MS. LAMBERT: How do those differ, and how did 23 24 they differ in 1982, or what's the distinction there? 24 25 MR. WILL: Well, the distinction primarily 25 214 215 it's an allowed use or whether it's something else, would be an additional entitlement, kind of like a different flavor of entitlement obtained from the county. , These guys are saying, okay, the deal — the problem was that at the time there was an issue with regard to blasting, and blasting in the zoning designation at the time in '82 would not have been an allowed use. And so at that point it was like, okay, if you want to blast, then that is not an allowed use under the current zoning designation and you will need to seek a use permit, and Mr. Logan agreed not to use blasting on site. MS. LAMBERT: Under this permit that's in existence or that was approved indicates no blasting. MR. WILL: That's correct There's no blasting and no one is proposing that any blasting take place. MS. LAMBERT: And that after Phase 1, it would have to come back for review, which — MR. WILL: Thats correct If Mr. Logan, who obviously was the recipient of the permit, if he chose to increase or he wished to increase daily output beyond what was called Phase 1 under this approval process, 20 cubic yards per day, then he would need to go back to the 1 with regard to in the context of 1982 would relate to the 1 2 allowable uses on the parcel as it was zoned at that 2 3 time, and mining was an allowable use at that time. 3 4 Therefore, a use permit wasn't required, just 4 5 a mining permit to satisfy the state law and the 5 6 analogous county ordinance which, as I said, is largely a 6 7 wholesale adoption of the state law. 7 B MS. LAMBERT: Well, why is it important to B 9 make that distinction? I don't follow. 9 10 How does it change our position or the 10 11 situation as it stands? 11 12 12 MR. WILL: I'm not sure 1 understand. 13 MS. LAMBERT: Whether it's a mining permit 13 14 -that's approved by this body or a use permit that's 14 15 approved by this body? 15 16 16 MR. WILL Because the use pernit can come . 17 with additional conditions or other things related to the 17 18 county's administration of the use permit 18 19 MS. LAMBERT: That would not be included — 19 20 MR. WILL: Which would not be applicable to a 20 21 mining permit. that's correct. 21 22 MR. NELSON: You're saying that we cant put 22 23 our own conditions on a mining permit? 23 24 MR. WILL: No, I'm not saying that. I'm 24 25 saying that a use permit typically would be — whether 25 216 Planning Commission and obtain addition approval. But as I said earlier, no one is proposing to expand the use beyond 20 cubic yards. MS. LAMBERT: So you don't have blasting either way. MR. WILL: No. We have no blasting. We never have had blasting. We don't propose any blasting. We don't propose to expand our output beyond 20 cubic yards per day. MS. LAMBERT: Okay. And then I want to follow up later with staff on what our process was regarding a use permit and a mining permit — but that's a staff problem. MR. WILL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIR WILSON: At this time, I have some cards here of people who support this. Danny Court MR. COURT: Yes. My name is Danny Court I'm helping at the New Era Mine. It's come into a — you might call it a very technical world. Things have changed. Things have gotten better. Your computers have gotten better. This room has gotten better. So has mining. So has mining practices. A lot of people don't use them to today because they can't afford them, or they don't think they want to put out the output 123 • Transcript of Proceedings 9 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 I13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he doesn't have any honor. The man that just left here told you one thing. I went out and seen him. I said — I couldn't believe he was in town, fair enough. After 30 years, can you imagine me saying, "What you are you doing here?" You know, he's here. We went out to his mine. Loaned him a truck. He was doing some stuff. Yeah, he's not familiar with California. Sorry, folks. He's from Arkansas. Oklahoma, that country. No, he wasn't. I said, you know, "Lee, you might want to look at this thing." You know, we all got problems out here. We got all — you know, California's a little different, aren't we. But we are. We appreciate it. I only paid a quarter of a million dollars for watershed models for every after school program in the State of California, including Butte County. So I'm a Tittle familiar with water quality. He says, "Well, what do you think?" 1 says, "Well, take a look at her, Lee" Come down and got an Abatement Order. That Abatement Order, folks — at that time, yeah, you didn't have no financial assurance, according to the documents — and I have not read that stack of paper, have no desire to. "Look, Lee." I said, "Whatcha March 13, 2008 219 gonna do, Lee?" Mr. Phil, I wished he wouldn't have left He looked at me and he said, "Whatcha gonna do?" And I said, "Well, Lee said, you know what, 'I give Phil my word.' He said, 'I'll go broke, but I'm going to stay here.'" Now, I can verify to this board, this county, that that man has put in 2 million dollars into fixing his problems that he did not create all. He was inherent to everybody that left 'everything, like the car mine. Anybody familiar with the car mine we still have? He fixed every inherent problem. And you know where that big stack of material come from? You say, "What happened to the vegetation?" You know, every. time you mine — and a lot of yards, 250,000 a year, whatever — you put it back right Vegetation grows. . Well, guess what happens if the before miner didn't put it back right Its not mixed correctly. Its not the soil back again. You take an aerial photo, huh. The soil is not disturbed. Want to make a bet? Get some hydrology down there and guess what happens. Everything starts moving. So he's also been penalized - not really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 220 penalized. I'm funny. He's kind of a friend. But stand up to the plate. So he's cleaned that up. Two million dollars and you're going to say that man is going to run out of this county? There's not one county official that's been out there that could say any different Now, the new big plant we brought in. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. It's called technology today. its protecting the water. It's doing it the right way. You put cyclones out there. You do a lot of things to get the solids out of that water before it ever . goes back into them ponds. It's not complicated. Sorry that it isn't an old sluice box. That plant sitting there — you can do the same thing that plant does for, oh, probably $50,000 worth of junk machinery, or you can spend about three million dollars by the way and do it that way to protect your environment And jobs. I guess everybody laughs around here about jobs. A lot of these people in here, yeah — there's a few from Thompson's Equipment They just laid off 40 people a week ago. Did you know that? Probably average wage 40 grand a year up. One of the guys makes 70. We picked four of them up. its a little operation? No, its state of 124 217 1 I heard a couple statements here I just want 1. 2 to get real clear. If nobody believes if 1 can hire a 2, 3 hydrologist today and it's for my benefit and he's going 3 4 to do it my way, then 1 guess it's about time 1 4 5 questioned Butte County, State of California, Water 5 6 Quality for every document that you gave the general 6 7• 8 public. 1 do believe when y= hire a professional, it 7 e' 9 is a professional statement, just like you folks. It's 9 10 professional. So this things about coming to, we don't 10 11 believe it's to my benefit. When our county — and I was 11 12 involved in our water quality and different things. 12 13 1 believe when we hire somebody to do that, 13 14 they are professional. 1 think that's what we're 14 15 supposed to get back. 15 16 If somebody has a problem with that, 1 16 11 disagree. I don't think we should bring issues like that 17 18 to any board because now you're questioning 18 19 professionalism of everything and if you want the public 19 20 maybe here to start saying, well, I wonder what I'm 20 21 seeing - so I just want to get that off the table. 21 22 Now, these people, as far as cut and run — 22 • 23 I'm Dan Court. You all maybe heard of me, maybe not. 23 24 Doesn't matter. But I'll tell you one thing, I met that 24 25 man about 30 years ago in the demolition business. Now. 25 218 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 I13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he doesn't have any honor. The man that just left here told you one thing. I went out and seen him. I said — I couldn't believe he was in town, fair enough. After 30 years, can you imagine me saying, "What you are you doing here?" You know, he's here. We went out to his mine. Loaned him a truck. He was doing some stuff. Yeah, he's not familiar with California. Sorry, folks. He's from Arkansas. Oklahoma, that country. No, he wasn't. I said, you know, "Lee, you might want to look at this thing." You know, we all got problems out here. We got all — you know, California's a little different, aren't we. But we are. We appreciate it. I only paid a quarter of a million dollars for watershed models for every after school program in the State of California, including Butte County. So I'm a Tittle familiar with water quality. He says, "Well, what do you think?" 1 says, "Well, take a look at her, Lee" Come down and got an Abatement Order. That Abatement Order, folks — at that time, yeah, you didn't have no financial assurance, according to the documents — and I have not read that stack of paper, have no desire to. "Look, Lee." I said, "Whatcha March 13, 2008 219 gonna do, Lee?" Mr. Phil, I wished he wouldn't have left He looked at me and he said, "Whatcha gonna do?" And I said, "Well, Lee said, you know what, 'I give Phil my word.' He said, 'I'll go broke, but I'm going to stay here.'" Now, I can verify to this board, this county, that that man has put in 2 million dollars into fixing his problems that he did not create all. He was inherent to everybody that left 'everything, like the car mine. Anybody familiar with the car mine we still have? He fixed every inherent problem. And you know where that big stack of material come from? You say, "What happened to the vegetation?" You know, every. time you mine — and a lot of yards, 250,000 a year, whatever — you put it back right Vegetation grows. . Well, guess what happens if the before miner didn't put it back right Its not mixed correctly. Its not the soil back again. You take an aerial photo, huh. The soil is not disturbed. Want to make a bet? Get some hydrology down there and guess what happens. Everything starts moving. So he's also been penalized - not really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 220 penalized. I'm funny. He's kind of a friend. But stand up to the plate. So he's cleaned that up. Two million dollars and you're going to say that man is going to run out of this county? There's not one county official that's been out there that could say any different Now, the new big plant we brought in. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. It's called technology today. its protecting the water. It's doing it the right way. You put cyclones out there. You do a lot of things to get the solids out of that water before it ever . goes back into them ponds. It's not complicated. Sorry that it isn't an old sluice box. That plant sitting there — you can do the same thing that plant does for, oh, probably $50,000 worth of junk machinery, or you can spend about three million dollars by the way and do it that way to protect your environment And jobs. I guess everybody laughs around here about jobs. A lot of these people in here, yeah — there's a few from Thompson's Equipment They just laid off 40 people a week ago. Did you know that? Probably average wage 40 grand a year up. One of the guys makes 70. We picked four of them up. its a little operation? No, its state of 124 0 • • Transcript of Proceedings I 221 1 the art and the people get paid well. And I can sit 2 right here and you want a W-2 form, I can tell you the 3 least man on that site is making $35,000 a year, and the .4 highest paid is making $70,000 a year plus benefits. 5 All them men I have told, "You drive fast,,you 6 lose your job." I'm not supposed to do that, am I, but 7 that's the way it is. You disrespect the neighbors, you 8 lose your job. 9 All the neighbors said, "Oh, why did things 10 change7' You know why they've changed? Because this is 11 Butte County: We need the work and if you want to work 12 for New Era Mine, you're going to do it that way. They 13 are not perfect people. 14 How many not perfect people have we had in 15 Butte County, folks. Let's get her down. We've got a 16 lot of problems. We still don't have an economy. 17 But if you can make sure you go out there for 18 three inspections a year, you do your job, and they'll do 19 their job, and. I'm not - and I don't want to come here 20 and start this blame. 21 And you're going to tell me we're going to go 22 back 20 years? Well, y'all know me pretty well. I think 23 I'll go back 20 years of everything this board and every 24 board has done. 25 We can't do that People make decisions at March 13,.2008 223 1 could put 20 of them kids through college and I'm tired 2 of the fight 3 We've worked from December. Why did it 4 change? Because we foxed it. Does that make sense? We 5 fixed it- We had to move the dirt Phil stood out there 6 and said "I'll be there in the•morning." I said, "Oh; 7 Phil, come on, give me a break It's going to rain five B inches of water today. It's going to be 90 miles an hour 9 wind and you want to come and inspect me?" You know what 10 _ he said? "Yeah." - 11 We've had 30 to 50 guys out there. 1 work 12 Christmas Day. 'So did half this crew out here. I don't 13 see anybody else that concerned about the environment 14 that they'll Work Christmas day. 15 I'm not saying people haven't done wrong here, 16 but'I'm saying anybody stand up and dump two million } 17 dollars in — and he didn't have to. ' 18 He could have said, "You know what, I'm a big 19 corporation out of nowhere and you can't catch me. 20 Goodbye' 21 And I actually told him atone time, "Wouldn't 22 be a hell of a bad idea, guys." He looked me and he 23 said, "What do you mean? d said, "You know, California, 24 we like the environment Do it right, got a job. Do it 25 wrong, you're gone' 222 1 the time, just like you're going to make one today or 2 tomorrow; whenever. 3 I'm going to come back 25 years and I'm going 4 _ to say, "You know them guys back on that board, I don't 5 like what they said." Well, what do we have these boards 6 for, then? 7 - And I know you're all worried about Butte 8 County's economics and environment, true? Every one of 9 you is worried about it Well, so are we. So why don't 10 we balance the playing field. 11 Why doesn't the county — why don't we try to 12 make somebody a model miner and why don't we look at all 13 of the things that are going on in this county? 14 1 would offer this board at any time a flight 15 in the air to look down at your county and come back to 16. this meeting and tell me that we all shouldn't start 17' working together as a community. 1 B This fighting, this money that's been spent on 19 this — a lot of these are my kids. I own Blue Leaf 20 mine. 1 spent a million and a half dollars cleaning that 21 mine up. Name one kid out here that they can swim in my ' 22 mine, and they do. We have paddle boats in our deal and 23 water quality testing. 24 They've all picked up the creeks, all them 25 kids have. We've spent enough money.fighting that.] •1 2 3 4 5 6 T. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a 224 I think this county owes them at least the ability to mine, 'do it right and inspect them. If you don't want to, that's okay. I'm not going to sit up here in this room in the public — and its not your fault. We've all been busy. In this county we've been broke for so many Years, l don't even know - can't count them. You haven't had the ability to inspect everything, have you? Have you had all the people you've needed? No, you haven't. So,`you know,.) want this board to look at this thing and say, "Okay. You know what? New Era is a damn good idea." This'county needs a New Era. We need to. respect the environment. We need to create jobs and We need to figure out how we'r'e going to work together. Because all these kids are going to want a job back here. I got one, he was so proud he got $7 an hour, $7.25 at McDonald's. I said, "Where are you going next?" He says, "I doni know, Burger King' This is no kidding. And fm going, "I'11 put you through college. I'll do what I can." Technology is our future. Mining technology is our future. We will mine. All of us will. We mine 125 • • LJ March 13, 2008 Transcript of Proceedings 126 225 227 resource today, do we not? Timber. 1 eight to 10 guys at the maximum. Should get better.' Off 1 - 2 every natural Everything we've got. Water. We mine water. 2 site, probably another 15 people. There's•so much activity. It's unbelievable 3 Everybody today — we just did a water study. 3 4 Paid a lot of money for it in Butte County. Why can't we 4 as far as looking for the gold. And, oh, by the way, has anybody noticed gold 5 all work together? I just want to know when the fight in Butte County and we get on with economic and 5 6 hit a thousand dollars today? Did anybody ask themselves 6 7 ends environmental " stewardship. 7 why? I "don't think so. 8 1 don't think that's asking very much. And B If you got a thousand dollars gold, you got an 9 I'm not saying — you don't want perfect. I can 9 economy in the tank. Gold does not go to a thousand. 10 you folks Butte County is far from perfect 10 dollars. It never has in U.S. history. How do you — guarantee 11 how bad do you think its getting out there? 11 12 environmentally. You might think its great. It's not. It's 12 Its just like Thompson's. How can them guys 13 going to take a lot of work. its going to take a lot of 13 lose their job and not going back? How do you think they been and it's going to"take a lot of people that 14 feel? They just bought homes. Thompson's has a 19 15 education want to make a difference. You can make the difference 15 good company, right? Its been a heck of a good company. 16 you can, but these people back here got to make the 16 How are they going to pay their bills? We have to start working this thing 17 18 difference. The neighbors —you come to me with a 17 18 all together. If we all want to take a hard look at it, 19 complaint, I will fix ft. You think I'm taking your 19 spend all the money on the lawsuits and the attorneys — 20 wateR Noway. We all love water. Not only that, 20 no offense•to any of you guys — but if we want to do . 21 that's our economy, is it not? We've lost our lake. 21 that then lets do it 22 Have we got paid for that? No. We do a stewardship on . 22 Hell, l got a million dollars. I may as well too. Lets make jobs and people 23 our lake with no money right now, right? Basically. So 23 throw it in the pot 24 IeYs work together. 24 accountable to the environment If we can't do this, then let's all just quit 25 Now, if we can't do that, then I think Butte 25 226 226 County is just to end up going up in a big puff of 1 because when they ain't got a job, you're down 50 percent 1 going 2 on your permits right now. Pretty soon they don't need a 2 smoke. 3 Them ponds. Nobody told you, great fire 3 job. We need to work together. That's all 1 have to 4 protection, did they? No. And they already come out and 4 say. Thank you. 5 CHAIR WILSON: Well, I have a big stack here. 5 said, "Can we do it, can we stage?" 6 If any of you feel like its necessary for you to add to 6 Did anybody tell you that's the end of the If do have a major fire, which you are all 7 what Mr. Court said, you're certainly willing: Oh, you 7 road? we 8 familiar with, right, Paradise worries. You know, that's 8 have some more. 9 MR. COURT: No. I apologize, be I did 9 where they're going to come and stage and take the water 10 say this. You all heard me talk. I don't want to wear 10 from. There's a lot more uses here than everybody 11 this meeting out I dont want to cost the county any 11 12 likes, but I'm saying give people a break. Make them do 12 further money. If you agree with what I said, raise your 13 hand and leave the room. No — what I'm saying is raise 13 the right thing. 14 But if tum down right now — and I can 14 your hand because — I told you they were going to leave. you 15 only estimate, but I can get close, damn near two million 15 1 just didn't know now, right 16 But leave the room. These folks have work to 16 dollar payroll a year. And it ain't five jobs, folks. there., How many people do you think 17 do. But rf you agree and its your point of view, go 17 It's what you see 18 work out of there? Two million dollar payroll a year. 18 home. Lets let them make the decision. That's their 19 MR. MARIN: That was going to be my question, 19 job. Thank you. 1CHAIR WILSON: Anybody else in the audience 20 sic 21 How many employees does the New Era Mine have 20 21 like to speak on this item? MR. CARTER: My name is Larry Carter. I work 22 and how many projected? MR. COURT: My projection would be New Era 22 23 with Peterson Tractor. I'm a lot less articulate, a lot 23 24 Mine itself, with the new technology — I'm telling you, 24 more nervous than Dan, obviously. 25 very new technology — probably the mine can operate 25 But I'll just say there's been a couple 126 �m March 13,- 2008 127 229 •231: 1 comments kind of — I guess 1'11 say kind of besmirching 1 permit, how will your decision impact on whether they 2 the reputation; I suppose, of North Continent. 2, need an EIR and what kind of permit they have and what 3 Now, they've been a prospect and acustomer — 3• that impact is on the use of that road up there and 4 now a prospect of ours for the last couple of years. 4 easement on that 5 1 do appreciate the time that people are here 5 We've not gotten all their business, we're 6 gotten some of their business: 6 today and all the work from both sides. It's been 7 The only comment I'd make is it's been 7 enlightening. e professional. They've treated me well as a salesperson, 8 I would leave with the thought that there are 9 they ve treated my company, Peterson Tractor, good as a 9 a lot of stakeholders here. All of us are stakeholders, 10 we have a piece of the mine or a job or not, and 10 dealership. Theyve been very fair to us. 1 think that,l don't have a long history, but whether 11 a lot of us are stakeholders, whether we wanted to be or 11 12 1 can say for the last few years we've been working with 12 not, and so 1 appreciate your consideration of that 13 them, they've been very good people to deal with. And the only comment I'd make about Dan's 13 aspect. 14 CHAIR WILSON: Thank you. Anybody else? 14 15 comment is I deal in this construction business every day 15. MR. HEILMANN: Good afternoon. My name is Dan 16 and I guess I realize that the technical definition of a 16 Heilmann. I've got a card up there, but don't worry 17 recession is, what, two quarters of negative growth, 17 about it 18 which is kind of an interesting comment anyway, but 18 Anyway, I'm a licensed general engineering 19 negative growth. 19 contractor and have been for over 30 years. 20 I'm not certain if we.. as a county, have 20 Before that I worked with my dad in our 21 fulfilled that —1 hate to say goal— gotten there yet, 21 . company owned construction business in Nevada City. 22 but in the construction business. we have. I do it every 22 And one of my chief jobs up there =and I'm 23 day. That's what I do for a living. And it's a 23 just trying to give you an estimate of or an explanation 24 challenge, to.put it mildly. So anyway, thank you 24 of why there's so much of a difference between 20 cubic 25 gentlemen. Thank you very much. 25 yards a day and 250,000.yards a year in reclamation. 230 232 1 CHAIR WILSON: Anybody else? Come forward. 1 These are the numbers that's been thrown 2 MR. POOL My name is Lloyd Pool and I live on 2 around here and nobody seems to know why. 3 the nm of the canyon, just north and up canyon from the 3 Well, being an estimator, I've been kind of a 4 mine, and I can see it from my house. 4 number cruncher, and they talk about four percent of the 5 When I bought my property in 2004, there was 5 total material is what's going to be extracted to take 6 no apparent mine operation there, either from the rim of, 6 off the site. 7 the canyon, from my house or walking down the road which 7 - If you take that 20 cubic yards a day and you 8 is the north end of Dry Creek that exits over an easement 8 run it out for 52 weeks a year, six days a year (sic), 9 on the Casa Del Rey homeowner's association. 9 that's like 312 days a year that you're going to be 10 When I returned from an extended absence in 10 operating that mine, which is about 624,000 — or 624 11 November, I. noticed a scar. I noticed a lot of noise, 11 yards aday — or a year that's going to be extracted. 1z and in that time there was a lot of Tight pollution 12 Four percent — that's four percent of 250,000 yards, 13 because lights were.coming up that you could see through 13 okay. 14 So what I'm saying is maybe both sides are 14 the bedroom window until late at night, along with 15 machinery noise. 16 That light has stopped and I don't hear 15 right. 16 Maybe the reclamation was saying, okay, you're 17 going to do 250,000 yards a year, and if you extract that . 17 machinery noise at nightnow. 18 out at four percent of that material, it comes. out to 20 18 But I have some concern that the mine, even 19 though its only 18 acres, would start using the north 19 yards a day. 20 end of the 'road right through my — essentially my bads 20 If I was a person living on that road, the 21 first thing I'would find out is how many trips a day 21 yard. - 1 wonder about the precedence here thats 22 you're going to make up and down that road with trucks 22 also 23 going to be set when your decision is made, and should 23 hauling out material. 24 this mine be successful, then the property that is just 24 They said one trip a day. One truck load. 25 north of the Logan's start their mine or put in a mine 25' And I think that's what the 20 cubic yards was , , 127 Transcript t of ProceedingsMarch Tra p, 13, 2008 2331 235 1 represented to be. And I've worked for Dan Court for almost nine 1 bad joke. z If 1 owned a gold mine and the whole hill was z 3 now and, believe me, four months ago 1 didn't think 3 solid gold, 20 cubic yards would do me just fine. 1 take years 4 1 was going to ever be where I'm sitting right now or 9 out one. I'd be all set. If that ore contained one ; 5 standing right now. 5 ounce per yard, then I'd be looking at a whole other 6 He calls me up and he says, "I got guys that 1 6 number, okay. 1 know that are in trouble." He says, "I need you out* 7 Now, I want to say that it's a joke because 6 there. I know your history in dirt moving. We got a 8 miners mine gold and they mine any kind of ore on the 9 mess up there and 1 want you to go up and look at it." 9 amount of dirt that they plan to take out, because they w 10 So I did and he says, "What do you think?" 10 have a general relative idea of what type of ore deposits 11 And I said, "They got a mess" And they did. This was 11 they are mining and correlate that to, you know, what 12 right after the first part of December and it was 12 kind of activity they are.going to have. 13 So them trying to tell you that they are going ,- 13 raining. 14 They had material up there that was unstable. 14 to take 20 ounces — or 20 cubic yards of concentrated 15 They said we've got a storm water protection plan in 15 gold ore out of there a day as opposed to just taking 20 16 progress. We haven'tseen it yet, but we've got to 16 cubic yards out of there, just ore or whatever they are 17 stabilize this mountain.17 going to move, it's just a bad joke and I hope you 18 And he says, "We've got two problems" And 1 18 understand it and I thank you very much. 19 said, "Yeah" I said, "You ve got a runoff problem." 19 MR. THOMAS: Hi. My name is Jeri Thomas and 20 And he says, "Our retention ponds are not big enough" 20 we fire up on Morgan. Ridge which is west of the mine up 21 So there was two immediate things that they had to 21 on the top, approximately 500 feet just directly above 22 address there. 23 One of the first things they did is they put a 22 it. 23 ,And the thin 9 I want to bring up is they are • . 24 — we had them put a cutoff ditch above the disturbed 24 talking about — the attorneys talked about we did this, 25 area so it would catch all the water that's running off 25 we did this, we did this. They didn't do it for 25 234 236 1 the property or the land that's above the disturbed area, 1 years. 2 • catch it; and route it around the disturbed area, which 2 They scoffed at all the rules, all the 3 regulations that govern mining in the county and in the 3 is — you've already been told. 4 Another thing is they looked at the ponds. 4 state. They never paid attention to anything. 5 They were right above the creek. I said, "Who put those 5 He said, "Who put those ponds there?" Well, 6 things right there?" And he said, "They were already 6 who do you think? Who is the owner? Who was the miner? 7 here." 'I It was Ron Logan. ' 8 And he said, "What can we do to increase the .8 So he comes in to dean up Ron Logan's mine 9 size?" And I said, "well," I said, "It's so wet right 9 . because he had ignored all the rules and regulations for ; 10 now, you can't do anything." I said, 'The only way you 10 years and years. 11 can increase the size" — and this is what we did, and 11 Why do we think there wasn't a valid permit? 12 this is where that big stockpile that you see in the 12 Because he had never — he never complied with anything 13 that was set down in the first place for him to have a 13pictures. 14 We went in against the hillside and we dug out 14 permit 15 and enlarged the size of the first three ponds to drop 15 The county didn't make inspections because 16 the water level so it wouldn't be so hard against the 16 they didn't know that there was a mine in operation 17 which was unstable, and that's the reason for 11 because he never completed the application properly. embankment 18 that big pile of dirt up there. 18 So I'm saying maybe they've complied now, and 19 That pile of dirt was pushed from enlarging 19 1 think that's great But this is a whole new thing. 20 the first three ponds, which relieved the pressure. And 20 They didn't do it in the first place. 21 that's really all I have to say. Thank you. 21 Anything else — if you were building a house 22 CHAIR WILSON: Thank you. 22 and you didn't comply, they'd shut you down. You would 23 MR. SCOTT: My name is John Scott and I live 23 have to go through a whole new process of complying with t • } 24 what you haven't done. You would have to finish doing 24 in Butte Valley. 25 1 think the 20 cubic yard argument is just a 25 things or just be closed down. You wouldn't be able to 128 • Transcript of Proceedings March 13, 2008 • is 237 239 1 continue. 1 period. 2 They've been accelerating the mining since 2 The lady mentioned the lights. The lights 3 they were told to comply. They have accelerated the 3 were up because they were working around the dock to try 4 to stabilize the banks under the Abatement Order. 4 mining. 5 One gentleman talked about the lights. 5 These are just some photographs that I wanted 6 Mr. Pool, was that — I think was his name. They had 6 to go through real quickly. 7 big, huge lights on down there that just penetrated the 7 These are the signs that are on the road B house. And the noise, it was constant And this is in 8 advising everybody to drive slowly to keep the dust down. 9 the fall and winter time when you should have some peace 9 Drive slowly, reduce dust 10 because your windows are closed. 10 That s the road itself. You can see that its 11 The summer time, its even worse. And the 11 a pretty good graded surface. There again. There again. 12 dust There's just a dust bowl down there in the summer 12 And again. No potholes. Graded. 13 time that just raises up in that canyon. 13 This is the mine site. You can see the 14 So 1 just — we don't want them to shut down 14 stabilization of the banks on the left-hand side. You 15 the mine. 15 can see the mill in the distance on the right Settling 16 We think they have a right to mine. We think 16 pond number one down there to the right 17 they should mine. Its a resource in Butte County that 17 You can see that on the left-hand side its 18 is valuable to the county. 18 hydroseeded and there's some swales and some hay bales 19 We just want them to do it within the law like 19 used to control runoff. 20 everybody else. I mean, we all have to follow laws and 20 This is the mine site. Its a very high-tech 21 they should, too, and not come in and say, "We did it 21 installation. 22 this last month. We've been operating for 25 years, but 22 . The water is recycled and returned back from 23 we did it this last month." And that's all I want to 23 the settling ponds to the mine for additional washing. 24 24 This is to prove that we're not afraid of say. 25 CHAIR WILSON: Anybody that hasn't spoken yet 25 aerial photographs. Here's another area where we're 238 240 1 who would like to speak. 1 building the mine. There's the site. 2 MR. OLSEN: Excuse me. My name is Don Olsen. 2 Yeah. You can see on the left-hand side 3 I'm with Holdrege and Kull and I'm under contract with 3 there's some erosion there. This is just kind of to give 4 North Continent Land and Timber. 4 you an idea -- 5 1 don't know the qualifications of the 5 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Can I have one 6 gentleman who spoke just a minute ago about the ore body 6 person speaking at a time. 7 and the value of processed material, but what I want you., 7 MR. WILL: This is the gentleman's business 8 to understand is that you don't know what you have until B there who owns the nursery. There's the nursery. 9 you actually have got it off site and you get the gold 9 Some aerial photographs of the mine site. You lo out of your 20 cubic yards of produced material. 10 can see the settling ponds there. 11 You don't know what's there. They are 11 You can see the perimeter on the right-hand 12 separating out that sand that's got gold bearing. — it's 12 side. Also, the bank stabilization efforts. 13 gold bearing, but you don't know what's in there until 13 If you look, you can see that the angle of the 14 you take it off site and process it 14 bank on the right-hand side as you are on the 15 We don't use any chemicals on site. We don't 15 particularly — 16 do anything more than a mechanical separation. And once 16 You can see right here, these banks have been 17 we got it off site, then we know how much we've got 17 stabilized and they have been made at a more gentle slope 18 Just a clarification. 1 B to stabilize the bank. Here we have all this area is 19 CHAIR WILSON: Anybody that hasn't spoken on 19 hydroseeded. 20 this item yet? 20 Here we have various swales and other measures 21 MR. WILL: If I could bother you for just one 21 that we've done to prevent water running off from up here 22 more minute. 22 on the upper slope down into the mine site itself. 23 Well, first of all, two things. Number one is 23 This is the pile that everyone is talking 24 to reiterate Ron Logan was there for 25, 30 years and 24 about — there was one gentleman who spoke earlier, 25 never got a violation on anything during that time 25 stated this came out of these ponds here in an effort to 129 241 243 1 try to stabilize the banks here next to the creek. 1 families that live on this road. 2 And this is the mine mill site. And I think 2 You can imagine the impact that this huge 3 that's all I have of the photographs. Thank you. 31 operation has on our lives. 4 MR. MARIN: Mr. Will, I have a question for 4 It just was this lovely peaceful community 5 5 where we all got along and helped'one another when we you. 6 MR. WILL: Sure. 6 needed to, and now we all are disrupted because.of this 7 MR. MARIN: Under the current level of' 7 mine. It's just a shame. Thank you. 8 production or extraction being under 20 cubic yards of 8 CHAIR WILSON: Is there anybody else that 9 product — 9 hasn'tspoken that would like to speak? 10 MR. WILL: Correct. " 10 If not, then I'm going to Gose the public 11 MR. MARIN: And the target date of completion 11 hearing on this and reserve comments between commission 12 being 2013 — 12 and staff. 13 MR. WILL: That's correct. 13 MR. WILL: Again, thank you all for your time. 14 MR. MARIN: And you're saying this operation 14 15 is never going to go past Phase 1? 15 (End of proceedings, 4:30 p.m.) 16 MR. WILL: That's correct. And, again, if we 16 17 ever did decide to go•past Phase 1, we'd have to come 17 ! 18 back and get an additional approval from the Planning 18 19 Commission. - "" 19 20 But we do not envision that and there's no 20 21 suggestion that that will ever come to pass. 21 22 • As was mentioned earlier today, the price of 22 23 gold is at a thousand dollars an ounce, so right now it's 23 24 profitable at 20 cubic yards off site each in terms of 24 25 output. 25 242 244 1 Obviously the price of gold fluctuates, but 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION 2 within the range of the recent valuation of gold per 2 3 ounce, 20 cubic yards output would be sufficient to be 3 I, Kimberly A. Barrette, Certified Shorthand 4 economically viable. 4 Reporter, in and for the State of California, do hereby 5 MR. LELAND: You mentioned twice now Mr. ' 5 certify: 6 Logan's permit from 72 to '82. 6 7 That the foregoing proceedings were reported 7 MR. WILL: '77 to '82. 8 by me stenographically and later transcribed into e MR. LELAND: '77 to'82. Did that have a 9 typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing is a 9 scale to it? 10 true record of the proceedings taken at that'time. 10 I mean, how much material he was able to take 11 11 Out? 12. 12 MR. WILL: You know, I'm not;very familiar 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name: 13 with that earlier permit 14 April 8, 2008. 14 My guess is just based upon permits that I've 15 15 seen generally from that time period, it's probably 16 16 fairly rudimentary in the conditions of approval and 17 17 things like that, but I have not looked at it and 1 dont limberly A. Barrette, CSR No. 6671 18 know. Thank you all so much for your time. 18 19 CHAIR WILSON: Anybody else like to speak on 19 20 this item that hasn't? 20 21 MS. MEYERS: Darlene Meyers. I just wanted to 21 22 point out — everyone has said everything already that we 22 23 wanted to say, but I wanted to point out that this road 23 24 is only three miles long. 24 25 Three miles. And there's 20 families, 20 -some 25 130 .r II e 0 t i 0