HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-135 000-000-000 (2)RESOLUTION 08-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MODIFYING AND ADOPTING THE REVISE)iD ORDER TO COMPLY AND
MATING FUNDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING AN AMENDED .
ACING AND RECLAMATION PERMIT FOR THE NEW ERA iVDl`iE'
WHEREAS Mining and Reclamation -Permit 8.1-135 was approved for the New
Era Mine ("New Era Mne"), a 'placer gold mining operation, using cut and. cover .
reclamation techniques, by the Butte County Planning Commission on May 20,' 1982; and
WIiEREAS, the New Era Mine.is located on Assessor's Parcel No. 041-080-027
at 4095 Dry Creek Road Oroville, California; and
WHEREAS, 'Assessor's Parcel No. 041-080-027 is owned by Ron and Betty
• Logan; the New Era Mine is operated by North Continent Land &Timber, Inc, ("North
Continent"); and.
Reclamation Permit No. 81-135 is governed by'the
WHEREAS, Mining and
provisions of Butte County Code (BCC) Chapter 13 and=Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act of 1975 ("SMARA"), and
Permit No. 81-135 allow mining operations
WHEREAS, Mining and Reclamation
to be a maximum of 20 cubic yards per day, but is not consistent and specific as to
whether that encompasses total disturbance of land or, processed material moved offsite,
and
WHEREAS, Departments of Development Services and Public Works staff
became aware of a renewed mining operation at the New Era Mine in October, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Departments of Development Services and Public Works staff
witnessed approximately 12 acres of graded lands cleared of all. vegetation at the New
Era Mine during a site visit on December 5,2007; and
WI�REAS neither the Department of Public Works nor the Department "of:
Development Services have any record of operations at the New Era Mine in the form of
annual' inspection reports, annual production reports or financial assurances for `
reclamation for the period between May 20, 1982 and December 5, 2007; and
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply 9
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit < ' Page 1 ®f 25
�j
WHEREAS the Directors of Public Works and Development. Services determined
that the current operation has not been and is not in compliance with Butte County Code
Chapter •13 Article II Mining and Reclamation Section 13-106 (adequate financial
assurance not on file as required),.. Section 13-112 (annual inspections/reports not filed as
required), Section 13-113 (substantial deviations require amendments to the approved
reclamation plan); and
WHEREAS, per Butte County Code Section 13-116(b)(1) and in regards to the. ,
above noted violations, the Department of Development Services sent by. certified mail a,
Notice of Violation on December 20, 2007 to the New. Era. Mine owner and operators;
and
WHEREAS the Department of Development Services ' and the Department of
Public Works determined that the owner and operators did not respond to the Notice of ,
Violation and therefore, per Butte County Code Section 137116(b)(1) issued an Order To
Comply to the New Era Mine owner and operators on February ,4, 2008; and
WHEREAS clarification of the February 4, 2008Order To Comply regarding the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Cleanup and
1 required that a Revised Order To Comply be issued
Abatement Order No. R5-2007-073
to the New Era Mine owner and operators on February 11, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Revised Order To'.
Comply for the New Era Mine, Ronald and Betty Logan, Owners, and Floyd Leland Ogle
and Frank Noland, North Continent Land & Timber, Inc., Operators, in accordance with
Chapter 13, Article 11 (Mining) of the Butte County. Code on Assessor's Parcel Number
041-080-027; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the current extent of
operations at the New Era Mine; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and closed on March 13,
2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning: Commission began' deliberations on the matters
discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has .considered public comments and a
report from the Planning'Division; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed its deliberations on April 10,
2008 to further discuss the Revised Order To Comply and the current extent of operations -
at the New Era Mine:
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 0
Modified Order to Comply
clamation Permit
Revised Mining and Repage 2 of 25
0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds the
following:
A. Departments of Development Services and Public Works staff became
aware of the current New Era Mine operation during the period between
October 24 and December 5, 2007.
Butte County Code Enforcement visited the New Era Mine on October 2.1,
2007 and'reported back to Development Services staff an extensive. mining
operation. Development Services staff were unable to locate annual
production reports, annual inspections or a financial assurance
mechanism for the New Era Mine. Staff noted there appeared to be no
California Mine identification number for the New Era Mine,
Development Services staff first spoke by phone with Lee Ogle (President,
North Continent Land and Timber, Inc.) on October 26, 1007, informing
him that it appeared that 81-135 had lapsed and that a new permit would
be required to conduct mining operations.
Development Services and Public Works staff conducted a site visit of the
New Era Mine on December 5, 1007 and observed approximately 12 acres
of cleared and graded .lands immediately west of and above Dry Creek,
• representing roughly 100, 000 cubic yards of displaced soil and rock.
During the period between early .November and nfid-December
Development Services staff requested the following from the operators of
the New Era Mine:
1. Annual production reports and inspection, reports;
2. Evidence of a financial assurance for reclamation; and
3. Evidence of Ongoing operations at the New Era Mine since
approval of Permit 81-135 orz May 20, .1981.
As staff did not receive annual production reports, inspection reports or
evidence of a validfir7ancinl assurance, and as staff found evidence
submitted by the operators regarding ongoing operations at the New Era
Mine to be inconclusive, a Notice of Violation was sent to the operators on
December 20; 1007 per BCC Section 13-116(b)(1).
B. The Notice of Violation was sent to the operators as required by Butte
County Code Section 13-116(b)(1).
.Regarding the procedure for a notice of violation, Butte County Code
Section 13-116(b)(1) states in part:
"If the public works director should determine that an operator is
not in compliance with the provisions of this article, the county, in
• conformance with section 2774. ](a) of the Public Resources Code,
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 3 of 25
•
l
shall notify the operator of that violation by personal service or
certified mail "
A Notice of Violation was sent via email and certified mail to the
operators, Lee Ogle and Frank Noland, and via certified mail to the
owner, Ronald Logan, on December 20, 2007. The Notice of Violation
required .that the operators demonstrate,
by January 21, 2008, that the .
New Era Mine had a valid permit, reclamation plan and financial
assurance mechanism.
During the period between late October 2007 (when Butte County Code
enforcement . f irsl reported on the current, extensive operation at the New
Era Mine) and December 20, 2007 (when the Notice 'of Violation was
sent), Departments of Development Services and Public Works staff had a
number of conversations regarding the mine, including conversations
between Mike Crump, (Director, Department of Public Works) and
Charles Thistlethwaite ..and Chris Thomas; (Planning Manager• and
Associate Planner, respectively, Planning Division). Further, .Tom
Odekirk of Public Works participated in the December .i, 2007 inspection
• of the New Era Mine and reported his Endings n addition fok to Shr o heuat rlPublic
in turn fortivarded those findings to Mr. Crump
Works and Development Services staff). Prior to the December 20, .007
Notice of Violation, Mr•. Crump determined with Development Services
staff that the operators were not in compliance with the provisions of .
Chapter 13, Article 11.
C. The Order and Revised Order To Comply were issued to the operators as
required by Butte County Code Section 13-116(b)(1):
Regarding they procedure , fore issuance of ' an 'order•, Butte County Code
Section 13-116(b)(1) states in part:
"if the violation extends beyond thirty (30) days after the date of
the county's notification [e.g_, the notice of violationl, the public
works director shall issue an order by personal service or cer•tifred
mail requiring the operator to comply with this article. "
The December 20, 2007 Notice of Violation instructed the operators (and
owner) to respond within 30 days ,(January 21, 2008). Ori January 18,
2008,the County, in order to provide the operators more time to prepare
their response to the Notice of' Violation, granted an extension until
February 2008,
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 1
Modified Order to Comply 1 G
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 4 of 25
The record .shows that the operators submitted a substantial amount of
material in the form of affidavits, photographs, receipts and other.
evidence by which they asserted ongoing operation at the New Era Mine.
The operators; in. Januaey 16 and Januaty 30, 2008 letters to Tim
Snellings also asserted in diverse arguments ilia/ Permit 81-135 was and
is valid.
Mike Crump (Director, Public Works) and Tim Spellings (Director,
Development Services) determined that the submitted materials and
arguments advanced by the operators did not adequately respond.to the
violations noted in the Notice of Violation and, on February 4, 2008, an
Order To Comply was sent to the operators and owner via certified mail.
(The Order To Comply was also presented in person to the operators on
February.4, 2008.)
The Order To Comply listed a number of specific noncompliance .
violations pertaining to the current New Era Mine operation and in
reference to those violations listed in the December 20, 2007 Notice, of
Violation (demonstrate a `valid permit, reclamation plan and financial
• assurance). The Order To Comply also presented a compliance schedule
by which the operators were required address the noted violations.
The February 4, 2008 Order To Comply also authorized the operators,'
pet Butte County Code Section 13-116(b)(2), to continue operations at the
New Era Mine "consistent .with all conditions of Permit 81-13,x, and in
particular Condition 21 limiting mining operations to a nraxinrunr of 20
cubic yards per day" until a determination is made by the Planning
Commission.-
"During
ommission."During the period between receipt of this Order and the
determination by the Planning Commission, you are authorized to
continue mining operations at the New Era Mine consistent with
all conditions of Permit 81-135, and in particular Condition 21
limiting mining operations to a maximum of ZO cubic yards per
day.
In order to clarify that the Phase 120 cubic yard per day limitation did 1701
include the operators' obligations under the Regional Water• Quality
Control Board Cleanup and Abatement Order No, R5-2007-0731, a
Revised Order To Comply was sent via certified mail and email to the
operators and via certified mail to the owner. The Revised Order To
Comply explicitly instructs the operators that compliancewith the
Regional Water Quality Control Board's Cleanup and Abatement Order is
not a violation of the Revised Order To Comply, stating:
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution I
Modified Order to Comply 1
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit
Page 5 of 25
"Any activities to stabilize or restore the current operation as
ordered by a state (including the Cleanup and Abatement Order
from the Regional Water- Quality Control Board) or local agency
would not be considered a violation of the Order to Comply. Work
to stabilize the site per the Regional, Water Quality Control
Board's cleanup and abatement order can and should continue. If
stabilization activities requiring the movement of more than 20
cubic yards of material per day are required to comply with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board's cleanup and abatement
order, it would not be considered a violation of this Order to
Comply. "
D. Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135 and its associated reclamation
plan for the New Era Mine operation are subject to current Butte County
Code Chapter 13, Article II (Surface Mining and Reclamation).
The application for, Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-13.5 (the Permit)
for a placer gold mine inAssessor Parcel Nwnber 041-080-027 was first
received by Butte County on May 22, 1981, Parcel 041-080-027 was
zoned A-1 (General) at that time and, per Butte County Code (BCC)
Section 24-66(a) then in effect, a use permit for mining was not required.
The Permit was subject to BCC Chapter 13, Article II (Replacement of
Material Displaced in Surface Mining Operations) and, in particular,
BCC Section 13-104.
The current New Era Mine .operation is subject to the current BCC
Chapter 13,.Article II (Surface Mining and Reclamation), in effect since
August 10, 1993 with the adoptio►t of Ordinance No. 3083.
E. The Mining and Reclamation Permit and its record indicate that the New
Era Mine was to be conducted according to three phases, and that
Planning Commission approval to proceed from Phase I to Phase 11 was
required.
The Permit contains two explicit references to phasing as a condition of
approval for the operation at the New Era Mine.
Special Condition 21 of the Permit states. "Mining operation to be
limited to a maximum of 20 cubic yards per day with -subsequent review by
the Planning Commission for proposed expansion to Phase II. "
Special Condition 23 of the Permit states: "No blasting to be permitted
on premises during Phase L "
The Permit record contain a number of references and exhibits indicating
that mining at the New Era Mine was to be conducted in a phased manner.
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 1
Modified Order to Comply 1
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit
Page 6 of 25
The "Three Phases" exhibit (PagelO of the March 13, 2008 Attachments)
shows mining operation -expanding in a counter -clockwise fashion frrorn
the Northeast corner of the APN 041-080-027 in phases of ' 6 months, 18
months and S years.
Additional exhibits (pages 001997 — 002003 of Attachment G of the March
13, 2008 Attachments and Attachment D of the April 10, 2008 Planning
Commission Agenda Report) provided by the operators also depict.a
phased mining operation in which mined areas are reclaimed as the
►pining proceeds (for example, the exhibit titled "After 5 Years ")•
Senior Planner Steve Streeter first posed the concept of reduced operation
in Question 9. of his November 6, 1981 letter to Mr•_ Logan:
"What would be a reasonablereduction in the proposed size of the
operation? Would 20 cubic yards per day or some other reduced
amount be acceptable rather than 80 cubic yards per day. " (Page
37 of the March 13, 2008 Attachments)
Mr. Logan, in his January.S, 1982 response wrote:
,We possibly could reduce our proposed size from 80 to 40 cubic
yds. per day until we build a record [and] then come back to the
commission for a larger permit." (Page 70 of the March 13, 2008
Attachments),
Phasing with .specific reference to at? initial 20 tons per day is referenced
in a March 23, 1982 letter- from . Ken A. Cole, Reclamation
Specialist/Engineering Geologist, Califon"nia Division of Mines and
Geology:
,4) This idea of a staged operation, starting at 20-ton-s/day and
increasing in stages, should be accompanied by periodic
monitoring to determine if the operator is .capable of going to a
larger scale of production. " (Page 124 of the March 13, 2008
Attachments)
TI7e April 8, 1982 Staff Findings (Page 138) included discussion of the
following meeting at the Logan property on March 12, 1982, two days
after Mr. Logan's appeal of the EIR requirernent was approved by the
Planning Commission_
"Tony Landis - Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ken Cole'-'
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology and
m
Gayland. Taylor — Departent of Fish and Garrie surveyed the site
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 1
Modified Order to Comply 1
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 7 of 25 '
•
•
•
along with the Logan's, Frank Bennett and Steve Streeter on
March 12, 1982. As a result of the field trip, M•: Logan tentatively
agreed to a three-phase plan to expand the mining operation:
Phase I would restrict him to a maximum output of 20 cubic yards
per day, the limitation on his current permit fi-om the Department
of Fish and Game. Phase 11 would double the output of ruined
material to 40 cubic yards per day. Finally, Phase III would be for
80 cubic yards per day, the figure originally requested ,for the
mining permit and in the draft reclamation plan. " (Page 138 of the
March 13, 2008 Attachments)
The April 8, 1982 Staff Findings further discussed the benefits of a phased
operation:
"The phasing would allow for a more careful review of the mining
operation by Stale agency representatives and County personnel.
If * through periodic monitoring a reasonable `track record' is
established, the expansion from 20 cubic yards per day to 40 cubic..
yards per day could be considered by the Planning Commission,
(Page 138 of the March 13, 2008 Attachments)
The April 8, 1982 Staff Findings, approximately two months prior to the
approval of Permit 81-13.5, also included Condition 21 as it was
eventually written:
"Condition 21. Mining operation to be limited, to a » aximunr of
20 cubic yards per• day with subsequent review by the Planning
Commission for proposed expansion to Phase IT " (Page 140 of the
March 13, 2008 Attachments)
A.J. Landis, P.E_ provided context for the phasing'concept at the New Era
Mine in his -April 9, 1982.Central Valley Regional Water Ouality.Control
Board Inspection Report:
Mr. Logan proposes,to open pit mune the entire property in a
three phase operation of 20, 40 and 80 cubic yards/day.
S. I .said we did not object to the proposal, provided all muddy
water is contained on-site. This will, however, be very difficult to
achieve because. of' the closeness of. Dry Creek, the extensive
hillside spring activity and the steep topography.
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply
Revised Mining and Reclamation. Permit
Page 8 of 25
16'
6. Mr. Logan agreed that he would only process up to. 20 cubic
yards/day (Phase 1 operation) for the next few years, until he can
solve the mine's muddy water containment problems.
7. Downstream landowners are concerned that the full scale open
pit mining operation may effect their hillside springs. The county
will have Mr. Logan hire a hydrogeologist to investigate these
concerns.
8. Waste discharge requirements should be drafted for all three
phases of the operation. A technical ' report could be required
when Mr. Logan wishes to increase mining activity_ " (Pages 1=17-•
148 of the March 13, 2008 Attachments)
F. The Mining and Reclamation 'Permit and its record indicate that -the New.
Era Mine was to be conducted employing a cut -and -cover approach with
reclamation occurring as the operation proceeded_
Special Condition 11 of the Permit states: "Undertake reclamation
immediately once each open pit mine has been processed.
On the "Application For Use Permit Butte County Planning Commission
form, dated October 28, 1981, for the "Description of proposed
development and use" the applicant wrote, "Placer mine with cut & cover
as our reclamation. " (Page 7 of the March 13, 2008 Attachments)
In his January a, 1982 letter to the Butte County Planning Commission
(responding to the 21 questions posed by Steven Streeter in his November
6, 1981 letter), Ronald Logan states.
"We think a bond would be an unreasonable condition in that our
reclamation plan calls for land reclamation as we go.. " (Page 71
of the record)
The reclamation plan approved with the Permit does not use -the
terminology "cut and cover"_ For the reclamation plan items 27
(methods, sequence land timing) and 28 (phasing), the applicant wrote
"see drawings"._ 717e "Three Phases" exhibit, . included in the Permit
microfiche and found on page 20 of the March 13, 2008 Attachments;
shows a phased operation of 6 months, 18 months and 5 years, However,
there is no explicit linkage of this exhibit (for example, by date or by title)
with the Permit or the reclamation plan.
The operators provided additional exhibits which appear to show
r•eclannalion following mining in a phased, cut and cover manner .(pages
• 001997 — 002003 of Attachment G of the March 13, 2008 Attachments and
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit
Page 9 of 25
17
Attachment D of the April' 10, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda
Report).
In the same January 5, 1007 letter, Ronald Logan also describes, in
response to question 13; how the cut and cover approach will occur:
"The inining operation will proceed by excavating ara initial cut
(Area 'A'), approximately 100 — 200 ft. wide by 300 to =100 ft. long.
(depending on width of gold bearing gravel.) The topsoil and
overburden will be removed, processed in a washing plant and.
placed in stockpiles. A second 200 ft. of mine area (B) adjacent to
the initial area (A) will be mined as in the initial area, with the
materials removed from area (B) placed to fill .in area (A). The
area will then be shaped and top soil replaced, and replanted
native to area. "
Mr. Logan then provides a flow sheet diagram illustrating this concept
(pages 72 — 73 of the March 13, 2008,Attachrnents).
To conclude, a phased, cut and cover operation in which reclamation was
record and 'by special condition I1 of
to be ongoing is supported by the
�. the Permit.
G. Condition 21 Phase I .mining operation limitation of 20 cubic yards per
day refers to a gross total volume, not a concentrated final volume of some
unspecified larger volume of material excavated, processed and thereby
reduced to 20 cubic yards.
The record is not specific and consistent with regards to whether or• not 20
cubic yards per day limit refers to a gross amount or an end product
concentrate. In Section III ("Discussion of Environmental Evaluation")
of Appendix F to the Initial Study prepared.for the Permit 81-135 (page
i0 of the March 13, 2008 Attachments), the description of the proposed
mining operation indicates that the amount of material to be processed —
80 yards of' "rock" - was a total volume f onr which gold would be
extracted:
"The mining operation itself will be open pit and will be staged
over a period of years.. The operation is proposed to be a wet
operation...During operation of the gold mine the applicant hopes
to process up to 80 yards of rock per day (about 100 tons/day).
Material removed from the mine will be put through the 'grizzly',
washed and separated into at least 6 different sized piles and
stored in mounds beside the first pit (shawn as 6 months on plan).
The volume of surface material excavated .represents a disturbance
footprint. A concentrated volume would essentially mean that the permit
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 10 of 25
19
•
had no limits on •Sill face disturbance, which appears contrary to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the 1982,permit consistent
with the. California Environmental Quality Act
In regards to the Sirean:bed Alteration Permit No. II -24-82, issued to
Ronald Logan by the Department 'of Fish and Game .for the period
Februmy 10, 1981 to February 10, 1983, Iter: 2 ("Type of material
removed, displaced or added') has gravel and boulders checked and
provides a volume of I5-20 yards daily, implying a total volume.
As noted in Finding E above, the record shows,that at the time of approval
on May 10, 1982, the Planning Commission intended for the New Era
Mine operation to be phased. The requirement for a more rigorous EIR
was waived in favor of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declm atioy
because the New Era operation was intended to start small and only
-enlarge pending successful review by the Planning Commission as stated
in Condition 21.. This does not accord with the operators' assertion that
the Phase I limitation was a concentrate of some unknown lager.vohnne
and its correspondingly larger area of disturbance.
The following references in the Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135
record support the position that the Phase I limitation of'20 cubic yards
per day was -intended as a total volume with less than significant impacts:
1. "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 $10,000 bond
requesled was entirely unreasonable for the little hole. that his
proposed 20 cu. yds per day operation would make (April 8,
1981 Planning Colrrlrlission Minutes, Page 142 of the record). "
2, "Ron Logan took exception do the amount of the per formance .
bond, stating that they had no place to store the overburden and
had to put it back as they went along, and that contractors had
estimated that the entire 20 cu. yds. per day could be replaced
for $500 to $1,000. He asked whether alien could be placed on
his property rather than putting up Ihe'money for the bond (May
20, 1982 Planning Commission Minutes, Pages 166 = 167 of the
record). "
The 20 cubic yards per day Phase 1 limit — whether viewed as a total
volume or an end concentrate - represents a rate associated with an area
of disturbance.
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 1 n
Modified Order to Comply 1 9
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit
Page 11 of 25
•
•
If 20 cubic yards per day represents an end product of some unspecified
greater volume of excavated material, there would be no limit to
disturbance associated with the permit Such a potentially variable
amount of total disturbance makes a consistent project description that
was (and is) required by the California Environmental Quality Act
impossible' and does not accord �t�ab iindications
h actio ck i record record
and, pending
New Era was to start small, establ
Planning Commission review and approval, be allowed to expand 'to.
Phases II and III.
To .conclude, the record shows that the requirement for a more rigorous
EIR was waived in favor of � az Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration because the New Era operation was intended to start small
and only enlarge pending successful review by the. Planning Connnission
as stated in Condition 21. -This view does not accord with the operators'
assertion that the Phase 1 limitation was a concentrate of some unknown
larger-volinne, its correspondingly larger area of disturbance and the 12
acres of disturbance seen at the New Era Mine
toay.
.be required to bring. the New EI -0o Mine
A revised mining permit would
into compliance.
H. The current New Era Mine operation is in violation of Permit 81-135
Special Condition 21, which states: "Mining operation to be limited to a
maximum of 20 cubic yards per day with subsequent review by the
Planning Commission for proposed expansion to Phase II." (Page 50 of
the March- 13, 2008 Attachments) No such subsequent review by the
Planning Commission was ever held.
As noted in Finding E above, the Pet
81-135 record shows that the use
of'phasing was intended to allow the Planning Commission review of the
New Era Mine operation prior to expansion.
Neither -the Department of Development Services nor the Department of
Public Woks has any record of "subsequent review" by the Planning
Commission prior to expansion to Phase 11
The Phase 1 limit of 20 cubic yards per day is considered a total volume,
and the. current extent of the New Era Mine — approximately 12 acres of
disturbed land with an estimated 100,000 cubic yards of rrnate e moved
between June and October of 2007 - is well in excess of the Phase I
limitation specified by Special Condition 21.
I•. peration'is no longer in violation of Butte
The'cturent New Era Mine o
and Public Resources Code Section 2773
County Code Section 13-106 .1
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Oider to Comply
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit page 12 of 25
20
•
•
requiring adequate financial assurance to reclaim the site according to the
reclamation plan.
Violation 4 of the Revised Order To Comply stales', "You are in violation
of Butte County Code Section 13-106 and Public Resources Code Section
1773..1 requiring adequate financial assurance to reclaim- the site
according to the reclamation plan. "
The record shows that a $3,000 reclamation performance bond was not
submitted as required by Permit 81-135 Special Condition 5 until the
current operators submitted a Certificate of IDeposit for $3,000 on
January 14, 7008, While this amount was inadequate to provide for
reclamation of the current New Era operation, the operatorsrevised cost
estimate of $167,411.36 has been approved by Butte County and the
Off ce of Mine Reclamation. When established as a valid financial'
assurance mechanism, this amount will satisfy1he requirements of Special
Condition 5.
The current New -Era Mine operation is no longer in violation -of Permit
J. T
he cu Condition 8, which states: "Improve .Dry Creek. Road from
35
Messilla Valley Road, at such time as mining traffic warrants, to reduce
vehicle dust impacts and for traffic safety purposes."
It is acknowledged that the operators of the New Era Mine have
per formed . extensive repair and maintenance on . Dry Creek Road
subsequent to damages incurred due -to heavy equipment use associated
with compliance with the Regional Water Quality Board's Cleanup and
Abatement Order. The operators are satisfying Pernnit Condition 8.
K. The current New Era Mine operation is no longer in violation of Permit
81-135 Special Condition 9 that states: '`Erosion control measures are
required.
a. Stabilization of all graded areas_
b. Stabilization of the streambank in area of mining operation.
c: Proper development of drainage for open pit mine area.
d. Install culvert -for any stream crossing of Dry Creek."
At .the December 5, 2007 inspection of the New'Era Mine, a representative
of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board .found
stabilization measures at the site to be inadequate and subsequently issued
Cleanup and Abatement Order R5-1006-0731. Althat time the operators .
were therefore in violation of Special Condition 9(a) and 9(b).
As the violation notes, both the Regional.
representative, Philip Woodward, P, E-,
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 13 of 25
Water Quality Control Boards
and Butte County's SMARA
21
inspection consultant, found that adequate erosion control measures as
9 in at the time of the
required in Special Condition were not place
December .5, 2007 site inspection (see Mr. Woodward's inspection report
in the record).
The Planning Cortimission finds that the operators immediately engaged
an experienced geotechnical engineering grin and, at considerable
soon thereafter. That work
expense, commenced stabilization work
continued through the extreme rains of late December 2007. and early
January 2008. At the date of *this f nding, Mr. Woodward of'the Regional
Water Quality Control Board reports that the operators are satisfactorily
complying with the Cleanup and Abatement Order. Compliance with the
Cleanup and Abatement Order, in addition to,water quality monitoring
' the
employed for the_ Waste Discharge Requirements, complies with.
erosion control requirements of Permit 81-135 Special Condition 9.
h. violation if Permit 81-135 Condition 24,
The New Era Mine has been in
which states:. "Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State
and local statutes, ordinances and! regulations."
•
The New Era Mine has not complied with the following applicable State
and local statutes, ordinances and regulations:
• No annual inspections were conducted at the site, during
the period between 1993 and December 5, 1007, . as
required by Butte County Code Section 13-111 and Section
1774(b) of the Public Resources Code. .
o No MRRC-2 Surface Mining Operations Annual Reports
were received :by the Department of Conservation or Butte
County between the. period of 1993 and 2007, as required
by Butte County Code Section 13-112 and ;Public
Resources Code Section.2207.
m During the period between the issuance of Permit 81-135 '
and January. 15, 200$, no annually updated financial
assurance for reclamation was on file with Butte County, as
required by Butte County Code Section 13=106 and Public
Resources Code Section 1773.1.
M. The scope of current operation has substantially deviated, from the
.the
Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135" reclamation plan, as
approved
defined by .California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 8,
Article 1., Section 3502(d), and. is' in violation of : Butte County Code
•
Section 13=113:
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution ^
Modified Order to Comply L
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit
Page 14 of 25 '
0
"Substantialdeviations from the original plan shall not be
undertaken until such amendment has been filed with' and
approved by the planning commission,. The planning commission
shall set a public hearing regarding such amendments in the same
manner as is provided in section 13-107.",
An amended reclamation plan is required.
Section 3502(d) states it? part:
"For purposes of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1971
and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, a substantial deviation
shall be defined as a change or expansion to a surface mining
operation that substantially affects the completion of the previously
approved reclamation plan, 6e that changes the end use of the
approved plan to the extent that the scope of the reclamation
required for the sur face . mining operation is substantially
changed."
The reclamation plan provides irformation concerning how a surface
• mining operation is to proal
ceed (e.g., timeline, volumes of inatei.
disturbed, location of disturbance) and how that operation is to be
reclaimed (reclamation methods, area subject to reclamation, timing of
ining site after reclamation is complete).
reclamation and end use of the m
The Permit 81-13.5 reclamation,�plan (pages 1 2-18 of the March 13, 2008
Attachments) provides little information regarding how the New Era Mine
operation "'as to proceed and how it was to be reclaimed.
The total area to be reclaimed. (Items 8 and 22). was to be 18 acres, the
estimated life of the operation (Iter: 1.4) was 50 to 100 years; the annual
arnount,of material moved (Item 16) was to be 50,000 to 150,000 tons or
cubic yards pet- year (neither measure is circled); the maximum
anticipated depth (Item 17) is I100.feei; the mining method (Item 18) was
to be single bench with tailings pond and gravel bar skimming; and the.
ultimate physical condition after reclamation was stated as' "we want to
Put' the land back and plant native to area.
Drawings are referenced for. those items requesting information. about
where the mining and reclamation is to occur, and for the methods, timing
and phasing of the reclamation. Although the "Three Phases" exhibit
(page 20 of the March 13, 1008 Attachments) is present in the Permit 81-
135 microfiche, and although the operators have provided additional
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply 23
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 15 of 25
•
exhibits, they are not labeled or dated in such a way as to link thein to the
Permit.
777e approved Permit 81-135 reclamation plan establishes an 18 -acre
envelope within which reclamation is to occur and for which land is to be
"Put back" and vegetation is to be planted "native to area. "
As stated above in Section F, the record indicates that the.New Era Mine
was permitted as a cut -and -cover operation in which reclamation would
follow and be ongoing with mining. In his January 5, 1982 letter to. the
Planning Commission, Ronald Logan describes the ruining . operation
proceeding by excavations of approximately 100 to -200 feet wide by 300
to 400 feet long, with reclamation in each. pit occurring after it has been
ruined and a new pit is begun. Using the largerigur•es, 200 by 400 feet
(80,000 square feet or about 2 acres), the record indicates that primary
disturbance -was to be about 2 acres at any one time, with previous pits of
2 acres each in various stages of reclamation. This is not in accordance
with the current level of disturbance at the New Era: approximately 12
acres of graded land.
• A reclamation plan is integrally linked to the conditions of approval for its
associated mining permit and to the mining operation itself. 77ze following
Permit 81-133 special conditions (see pages 4-6 of the March 13, 2008
Attachments) are related to reclamation of the site.
Special Condition 2 requires a streambed alteration permit from
the Department of ' Fish and Game 'for any work within or neat-
,Dry
earDry Creek." The operation permitted by 81-135• does not allow
raining to occur over. the entire 18 acres as stated in the
reclamation plan. Reclamation will not occur In the Dry Creek
streambed and riparian zone because mining activities are not
allowed there by the required Streambed Alteration Permit
o Special Condition 3 requires a current report of wastewater
discharge fi-om the Regional Water Quality Control Board by
which erosion is controlled and sediment kept out of *Dry Creek
o Special Condition 6 requires that "as much vegetation as
possible" be preserved to "promote ground stability and reduce
erosion.
® Special Condition 9 requires erosion control measures. Without
ongoing erosion control, reclamation may be affected.
o Special Condition 11 requires reclamation be undertaken
"immediately once each opera pit mine has been processed. " That
is, reclamation is to be ongoing with the operation' and not to be
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply 4
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit
Page 16 of 25
accomplished at the end of the mining operation over the whole
site.
o Special Condition 13 requires that areas not mined be retained in
.
"their natural state. Areas not subject to disturbance for the
purposes of mining areto be left undisturbed.
Special Condition 21 states that the mining operation is to be .
limited to a nraxim*um of 20 cubic yards per day "with subsequent
review by the Planning Commission for proposed expansion: to
Phase IL "
Section 3502(d) provides,five factors that a lead agency shall consider "in
determining whether a change or expansion constitutes a substantial
deviation. " These five factors are listed below, with comment in italics as
to where Staff finds the current New Era Mine operation substantially
affects the previously approved reclamation plan and the stated end use
for the New Era Mine property.
Section 3502(d) goes on to state:
• "In determining whether a change or expansion constitutes a
substantial deviation, the lead agency shall take into consideration the
following factors:
(1) A substantial increase in the disturbance of a surface area or in the
maximum depth of mining.
The current disturbance area — approximately 12 acres = represents a
"substantial increase in the disturbance area" of the New Era Mine as
originally permitted with regards to the Condition 21 Phase 1 limit.
Again, expansion to Phase 11 could only occur subject to a review and
approval by the Planning Commission that never occurred.
The approved reclamation. plan ,for Permit 81-135 states the ultimate
area to be reclaimed is 18 acres. However, Permit special conditions
6, I1 and 13 were intended to reduce the disturbance footprint to the
area being mined and the areas in stages of reclamation. Mr. 'Logan's
own description of the cut -and -cover operation show that the primary
disturbance area was to be approximately 2 acres'with reclmnation of
the previously mined areas to be commenced immediately after mining
in them is complete. The current disturbance area of 12 acres is well
beyond the size of the excavation pit and constitutes a substantial
crit -and -cover approach indicated in the
deviation ,from the phased,
•record.
ButteCounty Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply 25
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 17 of 25
01 �
•
(2) A. substantial extension of the termination date of the mining
operation as set out in the approved reclamation plan.
Permit 81-135 specifies no time limit regarding the mining operation.
Item 14 of the approved reclamation plan gives an ."Estimated Life of
Operation" for the New Era Mine of .50-100 years (Page 15 of the
March 13j,2008 Attachments). The current New Era Mine does not
substantially deviate due to a substantial extension of its termination:
date.
(3) Changes that would substantially affect the approved end use of
the site as established in the reclamation plan;
In Item 13 of the approved reclamation plan identifies the following as
the ultimate physical condition.and proposed uses of the mined lands
when reclaimed: We want to put the land back and plant native to
area. " (Page 17 of the March 13, 1008 Attachments)
Within these broad goals, reclamation would seen: to -be a simple
matter..re-contour the site and plant native. However, there are no
methods or standards in the ,reclamation plan to address the large
headwall currently at the Neu► Era Mine. The nature of the current
disturbance and the lack of methods and standards of success to
address that disturbance have the potential to substantially affect the
stated end use of the site as established in the reclamation plan.
(4) The consistency of any proposed change to the operation with the .
previously adopted environmental determinations..
An Initial 'Study was prepared for, the Permit 81433.and circulated to
the State Clearinghouse on July 9, 1981 (Page 19 of the March 13,
1008 Attachments). In his`July 1, 1981 letter.lo Mr. Logan, Stephen
Streeter writes:
"Potentiallysignifrcant impacts are identified with a 'maybe'
response in the checklist. Mitigations for these impacts are
necessary to reduce the level of significance for- the identified
effects, as required by the California Environmental Quality
Act. In the attached recommended Conditional Negative
Declaration, we have proposed some mitigation measures
which would provide ►nitigation.for particular factors.
"If the list of mitigation measures listed are acceptable to you,
or if.- you can provide alternate, conditions or project
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply 26
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit
Page 18 of 25
modifications that would likewise. reduce the significant
impacts, then we can proceed to send copies of the initial study
to the State Cleoringhouse.for a 30 day review period prior to
the Planning Commission hearing_ Otherwise, without
adequate mitigation of the significant impacts, an
environmental impact report (EIR) is required." (Page 26 of
the March 13, 1008 Attachments)
The Appendix F checklist for the Initial Study (Pages 39-47 of the
March 13, 1008 Attachments) identifies 10 potentially significant
impacts noted as "maybe" and.for• which, as Mr. Streeter pointed out,
mitigation measures were required to reduce the level of significance
to less than significant.
As detailed in the Permit 81-135 History section in the March 13,_•
1008 staff report, there was debate, as to whether or not the potentially
significant impacts of the New Era Mine as n ally
proposed
se ds per
in the
initial May 22, 1981 Permit 81-135 application
day of disturbance — required an EIR. The record indicates that the
requirement for an EIR was waived with the imposition of a phased
operation in .Condition 21 of- the approved perinit, wherein Planning .
Commission approval was required for expansion to Phase 11.
Accordingly, the current level of'disturbance at the New Era Mine is
not consistent with previously adopted environmental determination as
presented in the record, and the. environmental impacts. of the current
operation .substantially deviate from those considered- by the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted and 1981 certified
Page P67rof
erinit
81-135 by the Planning Commission on May
the March 13, 2008 Attachments). (A Notice of Determination for the
In Study Negative Dec'larati017 x�as ,led with the Page
(°e
Resources, State of California, on May 6, 198.. (Pae 1.73 of
March 13, 2008 Attachments)).
(5) Any other changes ,that the lead agency deems substantial
deviations as defined in the subsection.
Successful reclamation requires identifiable and demonstrably
effective methods to reclaim, and criteria by which to judge the
reclamation successfully complete. Between June and October of
2007, the New Era Mine became the site of approximately' 12 acres of
surface disturbance with a significant headwall feature. There is no
indication that the approved r•eclanration plan contains the necessary
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified order to Comply 27
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 19 of 25
L_ J
•
reclamation methods or standards to address this current level of
disturbance. 4"
ed in a
The scope of the current New Era Mine operationved with Peihas
135
81
substantial deviation from the reclamation plan pp
135 and is in violation of CCR Section 3502(d):
"An amended reclamation plan shall be approved by the lead
agency prior to the commencement ofactivities determined to be a
substantial deviation,fr'om the approved plan."
This is also a violation of SMARA Section 2.777, which states:
"Amendments to an approved reclamation plan may be submitted
detailing proposed changes from the original plan Substantial
deviations from the original plan/ shall not berovedert ke until
e lead
such amendment has been .filed w ith, a77pp
agency."
The Planning Commission did not approve an an:a Mine o ended ceaatiotn that ion as,
prior to the commencement of the current New Er p
for the reasons enumerated in Finding M, in substantial deviation. front its
approved reclamation plan_
The Operator is therefore in violation of CCR Section 3a0,Jova1 of
SMARA Section 2777 requiringButte County's Lead Agency pp'
the current New Era Mine operation.
an amended reclamation plan for
sthe
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; that the l mining Commission erdmedifiameation
Revised Order To Comply to provide for an
plan for the New Era Mine,
Ronald.andB rIan,O s,adFlod LelsdOgle an
Continent Land & Timber nPatsued
Frank Noland, North
Order as set forth in Exhibit -"A" -
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution ^
Modified Order to Comply: 28
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit page 20 of 25
•
•
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10`x' day of April, 2008, by the following
vote:
AYES: Lambert, Leland, Marin, Nelson, Wilson -
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None .
ATTEST:
_ z
Tina Bonham, Secretary
planning Commission
County of Butte, State of California
2
arrel Wilson, Chair
Planning Commission,
County of Butte
State of California
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit page 21 of 25
29
•
EXHIBIT A
080-027 Ronald and Be Lo an uwuc __� ______
North Continent Land &Timber Operators: An order to comply with Butte County
Code Chapter 13, Section 11 (Mining and Reclamation).
I, REVISED ORDER TO COMPLY:
ORDER OF BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFRVICES LIC O� AND `
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT S
REVISED ORDER TO COMPLY
TO PROVIDE A REVISED MINING PERMIT, RECLAMATION PLAN AND
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM
IN THE MATTER OF
NEW ERA MINE
RONALD AND BETTYLOGAN, OWNER
FLOYD LELAND OGLE AND FRANK NOLAAND, OPERATORS R H CONTINENT LAND
& TIMBER INC-,
4095 DRY CREEK ROAD
OROVILLE, CA
REVISED ORDER
PER BUTTE .COUNTY CODE SECTION 13-116(b)(1), YOU ARE HEREBY
ORDERED to provide to the Butte County Department of Development Services:
N PERMIT, 81-
l An application for an amended MINING AND RECD NewOEra M (APN
135 reflecting current and proposed mining activities at
041-080-027); Permit; and
2) A revised Reclamation Plan for the am
fleet ng acti it esed Mining e proposed n the revised
3) A financial assurance me
Mining Use Permit.
's REVISED ORDER is .issued in response to your letter of February 5, 2008. This
This 8; 2008.
REVISED ORDER rescinds and supersedes the ORDER of February
• The Notice of Violation sent to you on December 20,
2007 notified you that the "current
=135 and, more importantly, UP 8 1- 13 5 is no longer
operation exceeds the scope of UP 81
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 2 O
Modified Order to Comply -J .
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 22 of 25
•
•
considered a valid permit. It is our determination that the UP 81-135 has lapsed." (see
attached Notice Of Violation) Subsequently you have, provided Butte County staff with
information asserting that the New Era Mine has continued
135erate has of lap eddue through 1982 to
the present and that Mining and Reclamation
inactivity as defined by Butte County Code Sections 13-108, and 24-45.60. After
considering evidence at the public hearing on March 13, 2008, the Planning Commission
determined,that Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135 did not lapse.
You are in violation of Butte County Code Chapter 13, Article
11,
and
ion e S Oa a Mining
and .Reclamation Act (SMARA, Public Resources
Specifically, and as required by SMARA pursuant to PRC Section 2770 et sec., surface
mining operations must be in compliance with t approved
adequatenamounti to ensure that t , reclamation.
plan, and provide financial assurance cost estimatesn
funds are available to reclaim the lands affected by surface mining activities. Per Butte
County Code Section 13-113, Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135 must be amended
for the following reasons:
1) Condition 21 'of Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135 states: "Mining
maximum of 20 cubic yards per day with subsequent
operation to be limited to a
review by the Planning Commission fo
such subsequent review by the Planning copmmission wasevernsion to phase II" No
ver held
2) The scope of the current operation has substantially deviated,eAasedefined. Stion
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chap ,
3502(d), from the operation permitted by Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135
and is in violation of Butte County Code Section 13-113:
"Substantial deviations from the original plan shall not be undertaken
until such amendment has been filed with and approved by the
planning commission. The planning commission shall set a public
hearing regarding such amendments in the same manner as is provided
for in section 13-107."
3) The scope of the current operation has substantially deviated from the operation
permitted by Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135 and is in violation of CCR
Section 3502(d):
"An amended reclamation plan shall be approved by the lead agency
prior to the commencement of activities determined to be. a substantial
deviation from the approved plan.
This is also a violation of SMARA Section 27.77.
•
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 1
Modified Order to Comply 31
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 23 of 25
In order to comply with this Order you are required at d dates: plish the following
actions and submit the following items by the tndi
ment
1. Sign the "Statement. of Responsibility" we k ofdthe effective date of this
of Development Services within one
Order.
2. Submit a Financial Assurance Mechanism for $267,411.36 within two
weeks of the effective date of this Order.-ssionals experienced in the
3. Select consultant(s) and licensed pfive
rofepreparation of a mining permit and a' re la atconsultanon lan t's stat mentse of,
of the effective date of this r
qualifications must be forwarded and approved by Development Service
prior to your selection of a consultant.
4. Submit to Butte County Department of Development Services agood-faith
lication to amend Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135, with the
app
' required application fee, within 12 weeks of the effective date of this
mptly supply any additional information requested by.
Order, and pro
Department of Development Services staff. to obtain
S. The operator is ordered to'take all appropriate actions necessary
it, a reclamation plan, and a financial assurance
approval of a perm
mechanism in accordance with the attached, compliance scheduledate n regards
6, gully pay unreimbursed costs incurred by Butte County o
to this Order within one week of the e
costs as associated ctive awith this te of torder deas
Applicant shall continue top ay
necessary.
7. The operators shall be allowed to operate within to edfunctionalerimeas,
Pit #1 and Pit 42 and auxiliary areas (retention pequipment,
q while taking
etc.) during the execution of the Revised Order To Comply
all appropriate actions necessary to. oaitli n as roval P t 91 and Pit #2an s hall bperme
and reclamatof
ion plan. The functional
demonstrated on a plan prepared by the operator d approved by the
an
shall be
Director of Public Works. The remainder of the site
ontrol Board stabilized per
the requirements of the Regional Water Quality C
Code 13-116(b)(2), this REVISED ORDER is in effect as you
Pursuant to Butte County Commission concerning
have been provided a hearing before the Butte County Planning Co on March 13, 2008
nin
these violations. The matter was heard by the Planning
ril • 10, , 2008 at 25 County Center .Drive, Oroviile, California.
and continued to AP Code 13.116(b}(6), you have the Drive,
appeal the decision of
Pursuant to Butte County
the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors.
Any activities to stabilize or restore the subject property
as ordered by a state (including
the
No.
• but not limited to Cleanup and Abatement Order alleRRe Oion) or to a agencyaisf notla
Regional Water Quality Control Board Central V y g
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 32
Modified Ordei to Comply
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit Page 24 of 25
•
violation of this REVISED ORDER TO COMPLY. The owner .and operator shall
comply_ with all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Cleanup
and Abatement Order as determined by that agency..
SED ORDER will be referred to the Planning
Failure to comply with this REVI
Commission to determine the imposition of administrative penalties or other remedies.
Should you have questions concerning this REVISED ORDER, please do not hesitate to.
contact the Department of Development Services at:
Chris Thomas, Associate Planner
Butte County Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive.
Oroville, CA 95965
Dated this 21' day of A ril 2008:
Harrel Wilson, Chair
Planning Commission,
County of Butte
State of California
Attachments: Compliance Schedule
CC: Douglas W Craig, Assistant Director,
Office of Mine Reclamation
California Department of Conservation
Butte County Planning Commission Resolution
Modified Order to Comply 33
Revised Mining and Reclamation Permit page 25 of 25
0
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE - NEW ERA MINE
Deadline Action `
sts incurred by Butte County in regards to this Order
Within one week of Fully pay unreimbursed co
the effective date of Applicant shall continue to pay all costs associated with this Order.
this Order and "
ongoing as necessary
Within one week of Sign Statement of Responsibility form and return to the Department of
the effective date of Development Services.
this Order
Within two weeks of Submit a Financial Assurance Mechanism for $267,411.36 within two weeks of
the effective date of the effective date of this Order.
this Order
Within 5 weeks of the Select consultant(s) and licensed professionals experienced in the preparation of
effective date of this a mining permit and a reclamation plan within five weeks of the effective date of
Order this Order. Your consultant's statements of qualifications must be forwarded and
approved by Development Service prior to your selection of a consultant. v
Within 6 Weeks of the All applicable materials regarding the New Era mining operation delivered to .
effective date of this Environmental Consultant with Request for Scope,of Work/Budget
.Order
Within 8 weeks of the' Delivery of Consultant's Scope of Work/Budget for County Review.
effective date of this
Order
Within 12 weeks of Submit to Butte County Department of Development Services agood-faith
the effective date of application to amend Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135, with the required
this Order application fee, within 12 weeks of the effective date of this Order, and promptly
supply any additional information requested by Department of Development
Services staff.
WithinA months of County review and submittal of comments to Consultant
the effective date of
this Order
Within 8 months of Environmental document submitted
the effective date of
this Order ,
Within a months of Public comment period for environmental document
the effective date of
this Order
Within one year of the Planning Commission Environmental Document hearing (as required).
effective date of this
Order
Within 14 months of Final Environmental document approved/published (as required).
the effective date of
this Order
Within 18 months of Planning Commission Hearing on Use Permit and Environmental Document. .
the effective date of
. this Order
f
ki
Butte County Department of DeA elo pme $ Services
TIM SNELUNGS, DIRECTOR 1 PETE CALARCO, ASSISTT
7 County Center Drive
Oroville,.CA 95965
(530) 538-7601 Telephone
(530) 538-7785 Facsimile
www buttecounty.netidds
www.buttegeneralplan.net
ADMINISTRATION " BUILDING " PLANNING
April 23, 2008
Floyd Leland Ogle, President
Frank Noland, Vice President
North Continent Land ,& Timber; Inc.
PO Box 5362.
Chico, CA 95927
Re: Resolution 08-24 and Revised Order To Comply, New Era Mine Effective Date
Dear Messrs. Ogle and Noland,
Resolution 08-24 ("A Resolution Of The Butte County Planning Commission Modifying And
Adopting The Revised Order To Cn Permomply iF or The Newking ndiEra Mingsne )was passed and adopted on Regarding
Amended Mining And Reclamat o
April 10, 2008 by the Butte County Planning Commission.
As clarification, the effective date of the Revised Order To Comply To Provide A Revised Mining
Permit; Reclamation Plan and Financial Assurance Mechanism In The Matter Of The New Era
Mine shalt be the date that the Revised Order was signed, Monday, April 21, 2008.
;Wilson
Date
Chair, Butte County Planning Commission
•
35
:i
•
•