Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041-080-027 (29)-lobert L. Thomas 4396 Morgan Ridge Road Paradise, CA 95969 530-877-1133 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Tim Snelling, Director/ Pete Calarco, Assistant Director 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 January 31, 2008 Dear Chris, We appreciate the efforts.your team went to to provide us space to meet with Tim Snelling, Pete Calarco, Chuck Thistlethwaite, and yourself on Monday, January 28, 2008 regarding the matter of the permit for the New Era Mine. We also would like to take this opportunity to thank you for asking for input from nearby residents. We appreciate being included as our property abuts the mine property and does affect us in many ways and has raised some concerns. In 1981 or 1982, we attended a public hearing regarding the on'riginal permit application for -the New Era Mine. From what we can remember, the mining operation was going to be fairly small using very little -Or no heavy equipment and no blasting of any kind was allowed. It has been over 25 years since the original permit application and it is .our understanding that all the conditions of operation of a mine were not met. The original permit should be deemed invalid and a new permit process required, including public hearings. The fact that Butte County did. not conduct the required three inspections per year for a valid mining operation is evidence that the county did not consider that all conditions for a valid permit and operation were met. It is questionable whether Mr. Logan actually continually mined the property and no interim management plan was ever submitted. In addition,. it sounds like no reclamation plan was submitted and no financial assurance was posted until very recently. A bond of $3,000.00 is grossly inadequate and should have been posted before one shovel of mining activity was allowed under the original application. Since the scope of the original mining operation is enormously larger than intended under the original permit, a new permit should be required and absolutely no mining activity allowed until all conditions are met. I.E., a valid adequate reclamation plan should be on file; financial assurance in today's dollars must be posted and a valid permit for the proper scope of the operation issued. Under the current operation there is a great deal of heavy equipment operating 6 and 7 days a week from before sun up until dark. In addition, night work has occurred on several occasions utilizing portable generators and lighting units. This increased activity impacts not only the peace and quiet of the canyon, it also creates a big impact on Dry Creek Road and the residents of the canyon. *In 1994, Ron Logan did not live on the property at 4095 Dry Creek Road, Oroville. He lived at 851 Brandonberry Lane in Chico where we sent a registered letter to him and consequently received a return letter from the same address. 326 June of 2002 Mr. property PertY ori Logan's D Creek Road, Oroville was listed on the Butte County tax . Dry collector's list of properties subject to the tax collector's power to sell for delinquent taxes. The taxes due were $11,800.00 for APN 041-080-027-000, Jerry W. Badley & Ronald Logan & Betty — 4095 Dry Creek Road, Oroville, CA We have no objections to Mr. Logan mining his property under a legal and valid permit as long as.the operation does not have adverse impacts on water quality, the surrounding environment and the residents on Dry Creek Road. We hope that the information contained in this letter -will be of assistance to you in your decision. Bob and Geri Thomas 327 Letter of Opinion Regarding New Era Mine_Ewhittlesey From: Elicia Whittlesey [elicia.whittlesey@gmail.com] sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:37 PM To: snellings, Tim; calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Thomas, Chris subject: Letter of Opinion Regarding New Era Mine February 1, 2008 To Mr. snellings, Mr. Calarco, Mr. Thistlethwaite, and Mr. Thomas: I am a resident of Dry creek Canyon. springs on the west side of the canyon provide nearly all the water I drink, and Dry creek runs through our land. I have become increasingly concerned about New Era Mine as the lack of oversight by Butte county and other agencies has become more and more evident. I am writing to urge you to deny the 1982 permit and move to a new permittingprocess. only it longer process that thoroughly addresses our concerns will make it.possible for the residents of Dry Creek canyon and Morgan Ridge to live with a mine in our neighborhood. At this point, there are far too many unanswered questions -to allow the mine to continue operating under the 1982 permit. Is oversight in place, and will Butte county, the Department of Fish and same, and other agencies be directly and involved nvolved on the site in the future? what is the proposed scope of the mine, and how and when will it be reclaimed? How will the.water resources in the canyon, including Dry creek and the agui.fer feeding springs on the west side of the canyon, be affected? In gold mining; it is common practice to "dewater" the groundwater in a site bel re operations Begin. and pump the water onto the surface 10solnit, stormi.ng.the Gates of Paradise, university of California Press 2005)..Will his method be used at the mine in question? If Dry creek is muddied and the stream ed deggraded, how will the canyon's wildlife .be affected? These. answers must be known before any operations continue at New Era Mine. To allow activities that threaten the drinking water of a number of residents -to continue is to.value gold over water. Perhaps, ultimately, there will be no. -harm to the springs, the creek, and.; after many, many years, to the Logan property. But these.questions must be. thoroughly and expertly addressed. I believe that an Environmental Impact Report must be undertaken before operations .resume at the mine. Basic purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act - and EIRs are at its core - are to "inform governmental decision -makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities" and to "disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects. are involved" (CEQA 15002(a)(1) and 15002(a)(4)). In addition, "The EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected" (County of Inyo v. Yorty, 32 cal. App. 3d 795). we need such a demonstration. At this point, it is unclear whether environmental protection is' being deeply and seriously considered. similarly, 'The EIR is to demonstrate to an a prehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action" (People ex rel. Department of Public works V. Bosio, 47 Cal. App. 3d 495). The California Environmental Protection Agency can become involved in cases where an EIR should have been required by a public agency but was not. An EIR in the case at hand would investigate thepotential environmental impacts that are on everyone's mind and reveal to the public what the Butte County Department of Development services is weighing in this decision. At this point, i because so little is known, little, it seems, s being weighed. And the unknowns could impact the quality of life in the canyon more than traffic concerns or even reclamation procedures. we cannot be left wondering whether the water coming out of ur tap tomorrow will be safe to drink, or whether, indeed, any water will come out at all. Beginning a new permitting process requires all players (the County, the mining Page 1 328 Letter.of'opinion Regarding New Era Mine_Ewhittlesey company, and canyon-residents)-to become deeply familiar with the locality, regulations, laws,`environmental impacts, and neighbors'�concerns.` Forging ahead without taking time:.to examine all facets of this miningoperation will undoubtedly' lead to graver issues in.the future: operations at-the mine.must.be-frozen until a thorough permitting process has been undertaken. The neighborhood is prepared'to pursue this issue until our.concerns are addressed io'our satisfaction. Thank you for your attention to these matters. signed, Elicia Whittlesey P Page 2 329 ! • We have lived in Dry Creek Canyon since 1985. The on and off activity of the Logan family and the New Era Mine has been a part of canyon life. However, the current exponential expansion of the mine has brought about significant change to life in the canyon and has significantly increased the potential for a negative impact on our lives. The increase in the operation's size, occurring with little oversight from government agencies, heightens our current concern for the impact this mine will have in the canyon. Our family has a number of concerns with the recent major changes occurring with the New Era Nfine. Foremost is the continued health of Dry Creek as a vibrant, healthy year round creek. Equally important is the continued flow of the springs on the west side of Dry Creek. These springs supply household water to all the residents along the west side of the creek. It is Fish and Game warden Josh Brennan's understanding that the miners intend to go back several hundred feet into the western slope of Dry Creek Canyon. This could seriously imperil our only water supply. We need third party hydrology studies to better understand the impact the mine might have. The overall quality of life in the canyon is also a concern, particularly with the huge increase in traffic. A road where we could once walk the dogs peacefully has become a walk where we have to step aside allowing large trucks to pass. On and off through the years we've been aware of mining activity on the Logan property. • There were periods of time when we had to call Fish and Game to check on the mine after noticing significant turbidity in the creek. There were long periods when Ron Logan was not living on the property that we had no problems with the creek. The one time I personally conveyed my concern to Ron Logan about muddying the creek he threatened my by running me off the road in his truck while I was carryipg my newborn son. This was in the fall of 1987. Observing the creek running cloudy this summer and fall aroused our concerns along with the increased traffic. Calls to the county planning department reassured us that the New Era Mine was not expanding, that they had an `exploratory permit' to move certain amounts of soil. We called Fish and Game in November. Josh Brennan maintained the mine was doing a `good' job on keeping the operation away from the creek. It was approximately 2 weeks later that the county finally inspected the mine. The result of this was the Notice of Violation sent to mine owners. Apparently a consequence of this notice has been further damage to Dry Creek. Josh Brennan of Fish and Game told -me there were no Fish and Game violations until corrections were made at the request of the county and Phil Woodward of the Water Quality Control Board. In their quick attempt to fulfill the corrections they significantly impacted the riparian area along the creek and the creek bed itself. Mr. Brennan said he could cite them, but feels it's not the mine's fault. They were obeying directives from the county and Phil Woodward. Why was this not done more carefully? • Much of our current concern lies with our lack of confidence in the agencies that should be overseeing the mining operation. In reviewing the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act it becomes very clear that as the `lead agency' Butte County has fallen short of overseeing mining activity on Dry Creek. There is no evidence they have made mine 330 inspections, reviewed and updated reclamation plans, along with insuring financial. . assurances are adequate. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act is very clear on requiring quality reclamation, along with assurances to protect creeks, riparian areas, wildlife habitat and groundwater and aquifers. Not only do we have little confidence in these government agencies, but we have little confidence the mine owner and operator have good intentions to follow the laws in SMRA. If the current operators of the New Era mine think the original reclamation'plan on file meets current SMRA regulations it is clear they want to `get away' with the least effort possible when addressing environmental issues. The New Era Mine has expanded its scope significantly from the 1982 permit for which there apparently was no ERI required. Not having seen the.reclamation plan in place since 1982, I question whether it even comes close to meeting the requirements of SMRA Since the scope and size of the . mine has changed so significantly it seems reasonable for the county, as lead agency, to slow this process down and have the. new operators apply for a new permit. This process would greatly increase the confidence of the neighbors that environmental concerns, . aquifer concerns, and general neighborliness of the use of a private road are all being adequately addressed; in a logical manner by qualified people. We would like to seethe county require'.a new permit for New Era Mine.- The permitting process would take into :account environmental issues along with community interests:.: i +•--,There:: should be a thorough plan for what the mine intends and how they will proceed; than aquifer issues will be'understood and uncompromised and that the creek and what's .left of the riparian zone will: be protected. These are important issues that need.to be 'addressed. It is obvious that the current. situation has in place zero guarantees and assurances and that great harm could come to this canyon. I would like to think the countywill act in the best interest of residents and the environment and not to hurry up the process. To rush this because the price of gold is... . high and there is money to be made is not in the best interest of Butte county residents. John and Susan Whittlesey 3527 Dry Creek Road Oroville CA 95965, The first of February 2008 331 1'. Butte County Planning Commission 28 Feb. 2008 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Planning Commission, I am writing this letter in opposition to granting the New Era Mine company any permit for operation in the area of Dry Creek. Based on my:previous attendance at the Planning Commission meetings, I understand that the current operation is in violation of an old permit. In my opinion that permit is invalid and should not have even been issued since it allowed access to the mining property via a private residential road. How . can the County possibly think it can.grant commercial, heavy equipment access through private property without due process. There are many other reasons for not allowing the mine operation including the damage already done to the riparian area of the creek.. There .has not been a "project permit" granted by the California Department of Game and Fisheries. The mining project is in . violation of State codes. How can the County. bypass.State laws by issuing permits in this way? It is my opinion that the County does not have the right to issue: a permit that allows the improper use' :of the private property (dry creek road) of residents. It is also my opinion that the "wrong doers" involved in this whole enterprise is.the -Butte County Planning Commission for initially granting an improper permit, .for allowing continuing mine'operation with permit violations, for not conducting inspections; for.allowing .the enterprise to continue operating beyond the "Phase" stipulations in the original faulty permit, for ignoring State law regarding streams, for not having a full Environmental Impact Study conducted, for not requiring a substantial bond from the mine company to repair the area after they skip town, etc; : 1 believe that the County is liable for all damages including punitive damages associated with the suffering of its taxpayers and residents of the Dry Creek Road area. It is also my feeling that legal action against the Planning Commission should be pursued in. Butte County Superior Court. 1 hope that the Commission takes the residents seriously and that it seeks counsel and brings this issue before the Superior Court and requests a "Cease and Desist Order" be issued against the mine operation. This will at least STOP the activity until this matter can be legally resolved. It also appears that one of the Operating Partners in the mine operation has a history of scamming the . public. Allowing a permit in our County for such parties, is beyond comprehension. I hope someone is investigating this outfit! You truly, Ray hook • 3 Circle S Ct. utte Valley, CA 95965 " RUM.. 332 •� ��� MAR 0 3 200 i • March 1, 2008 Pete' Schwede Becky Woods Schwede 3019 Messilla Valley Road Oroville, CA 95965 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center. Drive Oroville, . CA -959.65 Re :.NEW:ERA MINE Dear Sirs: A June 13, 1981 memorandum to Bettye Blair, Director of 'Planning, from Clay. Castleberry, Director. of Public Works,. described the:proposed New Era Mine as a °small family operation." The New Era Mine use permit, reclamation plan and bond were. structured for a, small. business.. The current operation no longer fits this :definition; the 1982 permit i"s:otisolete Operators; Mr. Frank Noland and: Mr: Floyd Ogle, are - approachmg Pfaase III .level; and `issues only posed in :4982 -'.have now appeared and must be addressed: 1. Noise: Not just from mining, but heavy equipment, semis, dump trucks and -vendor vehicles traveling to and from the mine or idling on Dry Creek . Road. 2.- Hydroloav: Potable water is a critical issue to the residents. The water issue needs to be updated taking into consideration the expansion' of the mine to 18 acres and its impact on hillside springs and wells. 3. Traffic: Heavy equipment, semis, dump trucks, employee and vendor vehicles have tripled the load on a narrow and dangerous private road. 4. Dry Creek. integrity: Creek water purity and effects on wildlife need to be reassessed. Residents and their families use.the creek recreationally during the warm months, fishing and swimming. 5. Air Pollution: Dust and diesel fumes have become a genuine problem from heavy- mine traffic. The approaching hot months will exacerbate this issue. 333 i Twenty-six years have passed since the New Era Mine was issued.its use permit. This might not be a problem if the mine had been monitored and issued its required reports. The New Era has not had annual inspections .nor filed its operative/non-operative information. An application for a new permit and an EIR are necessary to address the mine's current status. We urge the Planning Commission recommend such action. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Pete Schwede Becky Woods Schwede /bw- Attachment 334 2 March 3,.2008 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 SUBJECT: CONCERNS ABOUT NEW .ERA MINE, DRY .CREEK ROAD, OROVILLE As 25 -year residents on Dry Creek, we wish to express our concerns about illegal mining operations being conducted by the New Era Mine and North Continent Land and Timber, Inc. near our home on Dry Creek Road. Our extreme concern is the potential for such a massive operation to interrupt and/or pollute the flow of the fragile spring line that supplies the household water for us and the majority of residents in the canyon. We also share concerns with our neighbors about the environmental impact that this operation is having on the fragile riparian environment (erosion, water pollution, fish and wildlife, etc.) and our daily lives (road safety, noise, dust, etc.). . . Our concerns are based on information we learned ata meeting on January 28, 2008 with Messrs. Thomas, Calarco and Snellings. They explained that the mine began operations in late summer of 2007 under an old - permit issued in the early 1980s to the property owner, Ron Logan, and that none of the conditions of that . permit had been met prior to commencement of these operations:.Explaining further, we learned inspections were never conducted, required,reports and reclamation -plans were. never filed and a bond was. never paid, and the scope of the operation was substantially greater than allowed under the permit. Additionally, we were told the mine, by law, mustbe in continuous operation for the permit to be valid. We' were told the Regional Water Quality Control Board rescinded its requirements on the New Era Mine in 1992, based on a.letterto the Board in which Mr. Logan stated that the New Era Mine was no longer in operation. In our opinion, this ends any discussion as to the validity of the old permit. We are confounded knowing that after the January 28 meeting.the mine continues to operate with impunity, continuing to expand at an alarming rate, after we were told by County officials that the mine is, in fact, operating illegally without a valid permitl We.were furtheramazed that the recent Notice of Violation issued to the mine operators contains a statement allowing the operations to continue as if the permit is still valid! At the very least, the County should have suspended operations until a public hearing was.conducted! Read: "You are breaking the law, but go ahead and do it anyway." As taxpayers and residents being affected by this operation, we strongly ask the County to: 1. revoke the old, invalid permit 2. require the owners of New Era Mine to cease operations 3. enforce the law and invoke penalties for operating without a permit 4. require an environmental impact report, and pending the outcome of that report... 5. allow the New Era Mine operators to apply for a new permit 6. in the future notify the residents of Butte County of such activities in their area and, yes, enforce the law! After proving there will be no impact to our household water supply nor to the environment and, after satisfying conditions of a .new permit, then, and only then, should they be allowed to operate. Respectfully yours, l Jay and Cathy Haws 3589 Dry Creek Road Oroville, cA 95965 P.S. Some interesting reading about one of the owners, Floyd Leland "Lee" Ogle:. http://www.sec.gov/litigationBitreleases/Irl 6604.htm httpl/classaction.findlaw.com/cases/securities/sedsecl ffiles/1999/Ir16050.html httpl/siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=8041935 ]BUTTE 336�c"J`"y MAR 0 3 2008 CASA DEL REY HOMEOWNER'S` ASSOCIATION, INC. c/o Sheraton Real Estate Management 1166 E. Lassen Road, Chico, California 95973 (530) 342-2214 March 3, 2008 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville,' CA 95965 Re: Opposition to Request for Expansion of New Era Mine' Dear Planning Commission and Staff Members: The residents of Casa Del Rey Homeowner's Association, Inc. ("the Association") have authorized the Board of Directors for the Association to provide you with this formal request to decry • the proposal presented to you by New Era Mine, which is located at 4095'Dry Creek Road, Oroville, California to expand the current mine operation which is located adjacent to our. community. which is known as Casa Del Rey.. The reasons the project must be'.denied are plentiful. This letter will address.some of the -highlights of the reasons the project must be denied.' The Casa Del Rey community is located in Paradise along Pentz Road at Sierra Del Sol. The Casa Del Rey community is made of 56 single family residences all of which share.a mutual waste disposal system and -drain fields that serve all of the homes in- the .community. It is the Boards. understanding that as part of the expansion of the New Era Mine it is proposed that the mine may be permitted to use the Hughes easement which is located along Pentz Road. The Hughes easement is a dirt road which is .located within the north and west boundaries of Casa Del Rey! The homeowners of Casa Del Rey ask that you adequately consider the numerous adverse impacts the proposed mine will have on the 56 single family homes that make up the Casa Del Rey community including, but not limited to, the following: • The impact that increased traffic along Hughes easement will have on the waste disposal system and drain fields that serve the Casa Del Rey community. It would be expected that with the increase of the mine operations there will be more traffic which may cause damage and erosion to the waste water system, that serves the Casa Del Rey community. • 'The Association understands that New Era Mine may be in the process of revising the proposal and reserves its rights to amend these comments or add further comments upon receipt of any revised proposal. 337 F=. Butte County Planning Commission March 3, 2008 Page 2 • The impact on the mine will have on the water. sources that serve the Casa Del Rey community including the impact that the mine will have on the sources of potable water and drainage which will likely. result from an expansion of the New Era Mine. • The impact on the mine will have on the waste. water systems that serve the Casa Del Rey, community including the impact that mine traffic will have on the waste water drain fields that serve the entire community. • The concern that regular traffic on the dirt road to and from: the mine will impact the Casa Del Rey community as large_ vehicles and other equipment that serve the mine will travel within -100 feet of the residences located along the western' boundary of the development. • Concerns regarding the impact of increased traffic along the Hughes ,• easement will have an adverse impact on local wildlife and wildlife habitats. In closing, our community is staunchly goosed to the approval of this mine project. To that end, please be 'advised= that, in the event that .the commission * does not choose to deny this application, the homeowners and residents of Casa Del Rey are prepared to take action to protect the legal and financial interests of the residents of the Casa Del Rey community. Very Truly Yours, CASA DEL REY HOMEOWNER'S. ASSOCIATION; INC. Board of Directors 6177.01/354151 r . i 338 March 3, 2008 Butte County Planning Commission, 7 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965 ATTN: Tina. Bonham RE: New Era Mine Dear Planning Commission Members: want to state my concerns involving New Era Mine operations. I have taken the time. to review prior planning commission, actions, as well as those of the owner, Mr. Logan. Please consider: 1) Failure of both the owner and county to perform in the past 27 years; invalid permit. A Negative Declaration should never have been granted: 2) . Dramatic increase in the -scope of operation at the mine; negative impact on environment and community. 3) Operating without a valid permit. 4) Inadequate reclamation plan and financial bond.. . The mine operations should be immediatelyhalted.at this time. A new permit should be . required which' must• entail an Environmental Impact Report. Damage ,to lands, roads and water sources must : be analyzed based on today's standards. A. fine should be - levied and a bond.should be immediately required by the owner for any future permit to . be considered. As an owner of property overlooking the canyon in question, I. Have a vested interested ..in this project and will look forward to a resolution that is in.the best interest of. all parties concerned. Additionally,. I am adamantly opposed to the potential use of the: "Hughes Easement" road which runs through our. association. This is a private 'road and . not intended for commercial :use. We. as an association would have to consider our legal recourse against the county to prevent our road to be used for commercial purposes. Hopefully, you will take quick action against New Era Mines to bring them quickly into . compliance. . In closing, I fully support mining operations for Butte County as long as they are conducted in a proper manner. . Sincerely, Joe P. Lopez 4492 Casa'Sierra Vista Paradise CA 95969 530-876-8296 339'�.,.,LT. • March 3, 2008 Butte County Planning Commission 7.County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965 ATTN: Tina Bonham RE: New Era. Mine Dear Planning Commission Members: I feel it my duty to address concerns involving subject inhopes that you will be in a .-'better position to make an informed decisionon:approving a permit and allowing - continued mining. I have taken the time;to review prior,planning commission actions, as well as those of the owner, Mr. Logan: Please consider: ' 9 .- Failure of both the owner and county to perform in the past 27 years; invalid permit. 2) Dramatic increase in.the scope of operation at the -mine; negative impact on environment and community. 3) . Inadequate reclamation plan and financial bond. ' : • Clearly,'the mine operations should be halted at this time. A new permit should be ,.required which inustentail.an Env4onmental. hnpact Report. Damage to lands; roads and water sources must be analyzed based on today's standards. Additionally; noise, flora- . , and fauna negative impacts must be evaluated. As an owner of property overlooking the canyon in question, I have a vested interested in this project and will look forward to a resolution that is in the best interest of all parties concerned. I have faith in your ability to perform your duties as required in a duly diligent manner and thank you for your .time. and efforts on behalf of the citizens of Butte County. Sincerely, Carol A. Lopez 4492 Casa Sierra Vista Paradise CA 95969 530-876-8296 Email: carollopez7@yalhoo.com • cc: Kim Yamaguchi, County Supervisor District 5 340 BUT't']E COUNT MAR Y. ' March 5, 2008 °��'SFIN� Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center. Dr. Oroville CA 95965 Attention: Tina Reference: The New Era Mine, Dry Creek Road. Dear Sirs: Citizens of Butte County should not have to remind: elected County officials and staff 'of their main duty for the welfare of residents of the County. Often, political, commercial, and special interests get in the way of this duty to the public. In the case of New Era Mine now operating on the Dry Creek watershed, questions are raised concerning the County's attention to this public trust: 1. Why was no Environmental Impact Report required? 2. Why was no restoration plan or reclamation bond posted? 3. Was there a continuous, reported operation over the years? 4. Why were there no.periodic.site inspections? 5. Why was there no monitoring of the tremendously increased operation? -. =• 6. Why did it take resident complaints to reveal the environmental destruction occurring? 7. Why was the abuse of the private road, not owned by the Mine, not curtailed? 8. Is the hydrology of the local domestic water sources in jeopardy? 9. Is the .original, 1982 permit actually valid? 10. Why does the Mine continue to operate as if there are no laws? We have no objections to the. New -Era Mine operating within the law, which in our opinion requires a new land use permit, compliant with all current regulations, and with assurance that restoration of the site will eventually be accomplished. We also expect due consideration by the New Era Mine for the living environment of all local residents, which includes but is not limited to, suppression of dust, mud, noise and light pollution. Since the private Dry Creek Road, the Creek, and Messilla Valley Road are the main interfaces between the Mine and local residents, we demand extra care to protect these important resources. Clar ce Thomas arty Virginia Joyce Hasty 3380 Dry Creek Rd. Oroville CA 95965 (530)534-7651 hastyto@ieee.org 341 Page 1 of 2 T From: "rich meyers" <rmeyers@inreach.com> To:<cthistiethwaite@buttecounty.net>; <pcalarco@buttecounty.net>; "chris thomas" <cthomas@buttecounty.net>; <bconnelly@buttecounty.net>;.<jdolan@buttecounty.net>; <mkirk@buttecounty.net>; <cjosiassen@buttecounty.net>; <kyam aguchi@buttecounty. net>; <tsnellings@buutecounty.net> Cc: "bob menefee" <bbmenefee@comcast.net>; "ruby roethler' <rroethler@gotsky.com>; "tom hasty" <hastytom@ieee.org>; "pete and becky schwede" <Tymecap@aol.com>; "Jay Haws" <jhaws@rmd.com>; "John Whittlesey' <johnccn@sunset.net>; "Bob and Geri Thomas" <2gthom@gmail.com>; "harriet spiegel" <hspiegel@csuchico.edu>; "jim&nancy Jones" <talljranch@earthlink.net>; "lucy cooke" <rcooke@csuchico.edu> Sent: Friday, February 01, 200810:22 AM Subject: New Era Mine on Dry Creek We, the following concerned residents near Dry Creek, would like to strongly oppose the County Planning Staff making a decision on the validity of the 1982 permit without more public input. We feel that this decision is beyond the purview of Staff and should be heard before the Planning Commission, with the resultant opportunity for public hearings. Some of our reasons for this request are: 1Waximum The USE Permit-UP81-135 issued for the "mining operation limited to a of.20 yards per day" is somehow being transformed into a MINING Permit which `has already mined 100,000 cubic yards" from your Dec. 20 letter. Even if this is legal(?) why was there no Application for Variance(Chapter 24-50 Butte County Code)? What Special Circumstances exist to allow such variation(Chapter 24-50.1) Why no Notice of Public Hearing, which is required in Chapter 24-50.15? 2.Chapter 24-45.60 - Use Permits cessation of use- "A USE permit shall be deemed revoked by the planning manager if the use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for a period of twelve consecutive months. (ord. no. 3176 section1(exh A),1-24-95 You have in your possession copies of letters written by Mr. Logan in his own hand from 1992 in which he states: 16 Jan 1991" the New Era Mines partnership is no more, it has dissolved, we are inactive." 4 Aug 1992 " I agree to meet your conditions and am asking you to please rescind our waste discharge requirements." There is a year between these letters where there has obviously been no mining activity. Order no. 92-200 as adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board states, under section g"Order No. 91-003, adopted 25 January 1991, prescribes requirements for New Era Mines, a limited partnership operating a �lacer mine, in Butte County .... THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WAS DISSOLVED N 1990 AND NO MINING HAS TAKEN PLACE SINCE THEN. THERE ARE NO CURRENT PLANS TO RESUME MINING." 3. Chapter 24-45.65 " Use permit may be revoked if acts constitute a public 342 Page 2 of 2 uisance. PLANNING COMMISSION WILL SET A DATE FOR HEARING PRIOR O REVOCATION" The residents of dry creek road have seen the traffic on this private road increase exponentially since the new operation has started. We have gone from maybe 5 cars a day using it to .a rush hour commute of15 to 20 employees going to and coming from work in shifts and heavy equipment from dump trucks every day, some days as many as 30 trips, to track laying Cats and lowboys hauling rock separation plants in and out. This must meet the. definition of public nuisance -in Chapter 32A-2. We are requesting abatement of this nuisance and a hearing about it. These are just some of our objections in relation to the Butte County .Code covering Use Permits -Chapter 24. If, as staff seems to want to do, you start to try and regulate the mine under the Grading and Mining Permits section -Chapter 13 - first it would seem"that=a new permit would need to be issued to have any ability to regulate them; second we have numerous questions as to the application of those ordinances: 1. Who is the "Surface Mining and Aggregates Committee" mentioned in Chapter 3 105. Are they involved? 2. Was there ever an interim management plan submitted when this mine became idle for 90 days(as evidenced by 1992 letters -with SRWQCB) as required by Chapter 13-109 4R.Chapter 13-112. a) Were there ever any annual inspections. )did the owner submit s? ) b t the required annual report. We believe the county staff is being hasty in making a decision to Work within the old, invalid permit or require a new one. We think much more public comment is required on this decision and the decision is one for the Planning Commission to make at a public hearing because of the above cited ordinances. County Staff has had three private meeting with the operators of the mine so -far and one with the concerned citizens. This decision needs to be discussed in a public forum. We also feel that the mine must be forced to be idle during this process. We feel, that their record of starting up this huge operation and only making a slight effort to comply with county and state regulations after they were caught in violations. speaks loudly for their concern for regulatory agencies, the environment, and local residents. 343 17A J t - ti r