Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutATTACHMENT J (2)BUTTE 7W -COUNTV I MAR r3 2008 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES •'ThornAs, Chris From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9-16 AM To: Subject: RE: NEW ERA MINE Attachments: 30=day Notice To Comply_New Era MiRp. 12200.7–RonLogan. DOC Hi -Pete, e.. r b..... I. will add . you-tothelist. Attached is the Notice of Violation (NOV) letter that went out to thei owner and ' operator. the 2007 inspection report has also been completed and sent to the Office of Mine. Reclamat!6n1n' Sacramento. it is too large to email but is available should. you wish to see it. Era Mine in January. As the NOV notes, three iteMs. ' " are. mit for the, New The County. will not be issuing any per required to mine in Butte County (and California):'a:-permit, a reclamation plan and a financial. assurance - i..(typiba'lly a bond) that reclamation will occur. It is staffs position that the New Era has none of these. Pe(Butte— County Cod6.13-.116, an Order will be sent to the owner on January 21 that sets -a Planning Commission hearing date (which will be open and noticed to the public). Staff will prepare a report recommending-that.the- .. "owner be required to apply for a permit. The Commission, upon hearing -evidence from staff, the ownevandthe public, Will decide on the 'permit requirement, fines and cessation of mining activities. The owner does have the right to appeal thePlanning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors. Were this to happen,.dnother Ili public hearing would be set. • Creek watir"46ality – - While the concerns of the Regional Water Quality Control Board – protection of the D ry are cert . ainly shared by the County, their Cleanup and Abatement Order requirements are independent of County (and State) requirements fora valid permit, reclamation plan and financial assurance. Thepermit process for. mining is extensive and will require full environmental review per the California Environmental Qualit.yAct. As a discretionary permit it will, of course, be heard at a public hearing of thePlanning Commission., Sincerely, Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706. -(direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) From: � Sent: Mon r6hdir-' anuary 14, 2008-9:47 PM 8yi- To: Thom6s, Chris Subject: NEW ERA MINE .HELLO, CHRIS, COULD I BE ADDED TO LIST OF'PEOPLE UPDATED REGARDING NEW ERA MINE' SITUATION. ALSO, HOW WILL THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT ORDER AFFECT THE COUNTY'S ISSUING A PERMIT IN JANUARY? - I NOTICED RWB'SET A SERIES OF DATES FOR NEW ERA TO COMPLY WITH. WILL THE MINEHAVE TO MEET THESE BEFORE XPERMIT IS::.,-- • ISSUED?. THANKS FOR THE HELP. 9. Z 0 0. R jr Page 1 of 1 , .. Thomas,'Chris From: Calarco, Pete t ` V ° Sent: Thursday, January 17,200810:33 AM + ' To:. Snellings, Tim,-Thistiethwake, Charles; dcraig@consrv.ca govt Thomas, Chris _ I Subject: clarification/correction of my statements r Thank you for meeting yesterday on the New Era Mine. I need to'correct some statements I made during our . brainstorming session after the meeting. Early in our brainstorming'session,•I mentioned that the. current mining activity is outside of.the boundary of the 1982 rec plan/permit This may not be the case. Chris Thomas briefed me further on the file materials and it Iray. be that the Planning Commission approval in 1982 -included mining activities for the:entire parcel. At. this point, I suggest that -we reserve confirmation of this aspect until we research ; the file materials further — contrary*to what I mentioned earlier in the meeting. Thank youe. —pate 'v Pete Calarco. }. ' Assistant Director ` 'Butte County Development Services ' 7 County.Cent6r.Dr 1. Oroville CA 95965 S (536) 538-2167 r t • # 00"23.47 I iI i noon .. ... � .. '� - ... I i. i age:l of 1. Thomas, Chris . Ftorn:. 'Thomas, Chris Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:36 AM l To: Subject: New Era Mine 30 -day Notice of Violation Attachments:.3.0-day Notice To Comply_New Era Mine -1 22007Ron Logan. DOC jl Mr. Cooke, I' Attached please find a copy of the Notice of Violation letter sent to the owner and operators of the New -Era Mine.. As I explained to � today, staff believes that the original permit forrthe above mine has lapsed and ithat a i new permit, reclamation plan and.financial assurance.for reclamation is required. This matter will be taken up ata publically noticed hearing of the Planning Commission. You and other concerned residents will, be. notified, well in advance of the hearing date and will be welcome to speak about this matter. You may also contact meat any; time with your concerns. The hearing will take place at 25 County Center Drive here at the County center m Oroville: The .permit process for mining is extensive and will. require full environmental review per the California.'` Environmental Quality Act. As a discretionary permit it.will, of course, be heard at a public.hearing, of the Planning Commission. Chris Thomas ') Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services. .530.538 * 6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) . 530.538.2140 (fax) I� 0 0 2 3 E 1 rage t. or L McMillan, Kim From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:22 PM To: Phil Woodward Cc: Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwalte, Charles; Snellings, Tim Subject: RE: Revision to Order to Comply, New Era Mine 1:21T e Thanks for the information — I wasn't aware so much work remained. I will discuss with Pete this afternoon —as I said, we can revise our order to comply such that your cleanup and abatement is met. The $200,000.figure came from a revised cost estimate prepared by Holdredge and Kull — it has not been reviewed yet by Nash but we were trying to come up with an interim financial assurance while we get the permit situation straightened out. Chris From: Phil Woodward[mailto:pwoodward@waterboards.ca.gov] Senti Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:15 PM To: Thomas, Chris Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete; Snellings, Tim Subject: Re: Revision to Order to Comply, New Era Mine • Chris - There are at. least two more pond embankment to repair/upgrade as well as loose material to pull away from the watercourse. Further, the pond's levies need to be compacted and increased in size to meet our containment requirements. Total yardage to be moved is around is estimated at about 150,000 cubic yards. Working at 20 yards a day is not practical. 20 cubic yards is two standard dump trucks. By the time you get the engineers and equipment operators in place, you can, only- work for an hour or so, then you have to quit. It is inefficient and very costly, and would take forever to get the work done. The winter storm season would be over. Further, the work needs to be done when the weather is clear. Therefore it is imperative it � ` be done as fast as possible between storm events. There is also the issue of bonding. Did I read that the County is considering a bond for $200;000? This is woefully inadequate. A bond (or other financial assurance) needs to 1) be adequate' for a third party to be hired to do the work, 2) pay for the County to oversee the contracts and work, and 3) act as a deterrent so the current operator does not figureA is cheaper to leave and sacrafice the bond. For an example, I would estimate the work done to date at the site to comply withour C&A Order would be over $1,000,000 if performed by a standard contractor. And the work is not completed! 2/13/2008 0 0 2 31-2 n,, 111E rage 2 of 2 Any bond for this site should be at least 1.5 million dollars. And that is if the site is currently . in compliance with our standards and the Department of Conservation. Call or e-mail me if you have any questions or wish to discuss things further. I can be In Oroville Monday morning to discuss issues if you wish. However you have to let me know before tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise I can come down on Wed. Either why, let me know. Philip V. Woodward Senior Engineering Geologist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board >>> -'Thomas, Chris" < Momas @buttecounty. net> 2/7/2008 12:47 PM »> HI Phil, Do you have any sense of how much work remains at the New Era site to satisfy your Cleanup and Abatement Order? Our counsel feels a revision our Orderto Comply may not be necessary if the remaining work can be accomplished by moving less than 20 cubic yards per day. I Imagine the answer is somewhat weather dependent. I understand from Pete that you would be more comfortable with a revised Order to Comply which explicitly allows activities to satisfy your Cleanup and Abatement Order and we can do this— our counsel just wanted to know how much work remained in your view. Thanks for sending all the New Era records. Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) 2/13/2008 00213E 3 7 mnis 1[u nuiH I�U t McMillan, Kim From: Snellings, Tim Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:53 AM _ To: Thistlethwaite, Charles Cc: Yamaguchi, Kim; Haddix, Brian; Calarco, Pete; McCracken, Shari Subject: RE: New Era Mine Thanks Chuck for your focus, progress and follow through. It's good to hear that County Counsel really is helping ° us explore a way through this difficult one. I'm keeping Kim and Bdan'-in the loop on this as we progress. Please keep me updated as this:develops further today. Do you have"a date/time set up yet for a meeting with the neighbors and the operators? We should get something booked soon. Talk to you soon, Tim From: Thistlethwaite, Charles Sent: Fri 2/1/2008 8:52 AM To: Calarco, Pete; Snellings, Tim Subject: RE: New Era Mine Chris Thomas and I met with'Neil and Felix for almost two hours yesterday evening bringing them up to speed on Chris is preparing a couple of draft determinations and orders for review on Monday: Neil and Felix are lined'up to review our documents at 10:00 am on Monday. Thanks, Chuck _ " Charles S. Thistlethwaite,'AICP •�� • Manager, Planning Division Butte County Department of Development Services " • • E-mail: CThistlethwalte(cD-buttecounty.net Lai li��+ Phone: (530) 538-6572 FAX: (330) 538-2140 I From: Calarco, Pete Sent: Thursday, January 31,:2008 4:31 PM • To: Snellings, Tim Cc: Haddix, Brian; McCracken, Shari; Thisdethwaite, Charles Subject: RE: New Era Mine # 002354. 2/13/2008 ,I[ -rage I or I McMillcin, KIM From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:05 PM To: Snellings, Tim Cc: ThIstlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete. -Subject: New Era Mine - 20 cubic yards per day limit In Phase Tim, I had previously marked all references to "Phase I" and discussions regarding phasing and 20 cubic yards per day limits In the rinicrofiche file for UP 81-136 and, in reviewing these references, I can find no e mention- of more than 20 cubic. yards per da' explicit discussion or day being moved, dug up or otherwise processed 20 cubicyards (or less) of gold -bearing material. sed in order to end up with representative)In a January 5, 1982 response by Ron Logan (or his to 24 questions from Steve Streeter, the letter does discuss — for about a page or so — how the ,mine operation would process material and it provides a, flow sheet to diagram the approach The of a cut and cover operation with pits 100-200 feet wide by 300-400 feet long du out, of is In. One might deduce from the now sheet that the soil and rock ultimately 9 Processed and filled back mately washed for gold might be considerably less than the amount dug out initially, but again, I 'see no explicit reference as to whether or not 20 cubi . an end product of a much larger initial cut. c yards is Let me know if you'd like to see these references and discuss further. Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of DevelO'Pment Services 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (Office) 530.538.2140 (fax) 10 2/13/2008 'G,0I' '22,35 5 .rage A vi • McMillan, Kim From: Snellings, Tim Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:03 AM To: Thomas, Chris Subject: RE: New Era: please draft... Thanks. I look forward to reviewing it and sending it off to buy US a little bit of time. Tim From: Thomas, Chris , Sent: Fri 1/18/2008 10:58 AM To: Snellings, Tim Subject: RE: New Era: please draft... Will do, Tim. I'll start on it now and should have a draft in an hour or so. Chris From: Snellings, Tim Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:34 AM To: Thomas, Chris; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: New Era: please draft... Chris: Please draft an email for me to send to the guys (and include their email addresses as I don't have them with ' me) at.New Era Mine to give them and us some more time to put together our strategy (that we need to review j with F&G and OMR. - I know that its not necessary from the perspective of the Notice of Violation.. However, there is what appears to them as a deadline that they are not going to meet and I know that they will be concerned to go past it without something from us. 4 I would suggest that you include something like 'as a follow up to our meeting on ... where you provided us with information about the operational history ... our department is still reviewing this information. As a result of your efforts to stabilize the site and provide us this information, you are hereby granted 15 days for... Hopefully, this makes sense. Feel free to call me at my home office atThanks, Tim 2/13/2008 McMillan, Kim From: Thomas, Chris Sent: To: Cc: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:04 AM , Charles; Calarco, Pete; Snellings, Subject: New Era Mine update Good Morning, Last Wednesday, January 16, 2008; Development Services staff met with the operators of the New Era Mine, Frank Noland and Lee Ogle (of North Continent Land & Timber). Two representatives from the Office of Mine Reclamation were also present, as was a representative from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mesrrs. Noland and Ogle continued to argue that the New Era operation is permitted to mine under Use Permit 81-135 and presented a fair amount of information they believe demonstrates that the New Era has continuously operated since first permitted in May of 1982._ Under Butte County Code, an approved use permit may be 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. Staff requires additional time to assess the material produced by the operators and sent the email below allowing a 15 day extension to the Notice of Volation' deadline of January 21. Again, three items are required for a mine operation: a use permit, a reclamation plan, and financial assurance that reclamation will be completed. The reclamation plan and financial assurance must reflect the current operation. Concern has been expressed about the condition of Dry Creek Road. The operators are aware of this issue; staff will address repairs to the road in its determination. I spoke with Mr. Ogle on Friday about heavy trucks travelling to the New Era and road safety and I will repeat my concerns to him. Many of you have asked to remain anonymous. Staff has not and will not reveal to the New Era operators or Mr. Logan the names of any residents concerned about the New Era operation. Sincerely, Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services . 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 002357 530.538.2140 (fax) Dear Messrs. Ogle and Noland, Thank you for meeting with Development Services staff on January. 16, 2008 to discuss the validity of Use Permit 81-135, the reclamation plan and the financial assurance mechanism for the New Era Mine. We appreciate the effort you have taken to present your information in a cohesive manner. Additionally, and in light of recent weather, we recognize the extensive work you have undertaken to stabilize the New Era site as required by the Cleanup and Abatement Order from the Central Valley Regional Water. Quality Control Board. As you know, the December 20, 2007 Notice of Violation sent to you and Ronald Logan requires that you demonstrate a valid permit, reclamation plan and financial assurance mechanism for the New Era Mine by Monday January 21, 2008. As Staff requires more time to evaluate the information. you have provided, and in recognition of your efforts to stabilize the site, we will defer our determination on the 2/13/2008 m10 III la❑ Page 1 of 1 Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Snellings, Tim Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 7:09 AM To: Thomas, Chris; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: RE: New Era 20 cubic yards per day question Thanks Chris. Can you please email me this information? Tim From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Thu 2/7/2008 3:18 PM To: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles. Subject: New Era 20 cubic yards per day question Page 8 of 9, Appendix F, of the initial study states: "During operation of the gold mine the applicant hopes to process up to 80 yards of rock per day (about 100 tons/day)." I take this to mean a total of 80 yards, from which gold will be extracted. The number 80 is in project documents up until the idea of phasing is first discussed; then the numbers of 20, 40 and 80 occur in relation to phasing. Chris 01 0 2 T. Page l of 1 Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 8:53 AM To: Snellings, Tim Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: RE: New Era 20 cubic yards per day question Attachments: UP 81-135 Phasing.pdf Tim, Attached are pages from the UP 81-135 microfiche file with references to phasing and/or 20 cubic yards per day "output". It's still unclear to me if 20 cubic yards maximum output (about two dump truck loads) refers to the gross amount of soil and rock that can be disturbed per day, or represents the net amount, reduced from some larger volume. The record shows debate about whether or not an EIR was to be required during the 1981-1882 PC hearings; at the March 19, 1982 hearing, the PC voted 3-1 not to require an EIR. It's interesting that at the March 12, 1982 meeting (page 6 of this pdf) of Tony Curtis (Water Board), Ken Cole (DOC), Gayland Taylor (DFG), Steve Streeter and the Logans at'the New Era site, the idea of phasing first appears (chronologically) in the UP 81-135 file and Ron Logan "tentatively agreed'to a three-phase plan to expand the mining operation." Perhaps discussions were going on to limit and phase the operation as a way of avoiding an EIR. Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) From: Snellings, Tim Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 7:09 AM To: Thomas, Chris; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: RE: New Era 20 cubic yards per day question Thanks Chris. Can you please email me this information? Tim From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Thu 2/7/2008 3:18 PM To: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: New Era 20 cubic yards per day question Page 8 of 9, Appendix F, of the initial study states: "During operation of the gold mine the applicant hopes to process up to 80 yards of rock per day (about 100 tons/day)." I take this to mean a total of 80 yards; from which gold will be extracted. The number 80 is in'pro&t documents up until the idea of phasing is first discussed; then the numbers of 20, 40 and 80 occur in relation to phasing: Chris 0 aT.Z 5'9 S Years - lE Moto*his �+. •J, 4 �,, ..��• ti 6MoNihs �• � ,rF~ij% 0 i p !� L � - f4�rEE PhasEs 00? �� ' ![1 'J`�,�11il:i1xYf� '� ...��• � S• 4: �e+-_ �='"•`.:ter j�{�t.4 .l�'�'Sy�st�;.�=.•y-'1- 'L_ .y�'�"'�:i=S ,N�� '�'�'�'`I'y't��'''4E.':•�.t 1�I' tAehO� u• fi'�-'��o��,r,.hj��.a er,.0%: �Y� �r�•:S{s5- i•.,. j9::�:�'r!�MARL�����R'�.f��►��A.��.CO . RAAlY°>�' - �� � 20 Page 1 of 1 I . • Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:47 PM To: Phil Woodward` Cc: - Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Snellings, Tim Subject: Revision to Order to Comply, New Era Mine i Hi Phil, I I Do you have any sense of how much work remains at the New Era site to satisfy your Cleanup and Abatement Order? Our counsel feels a revision our Order to Comply may not be necessary if the remaining work can be accomplished by moving less than 20 cubic yards per day. I imagine the answer is somewhat weather dependent. I understand from Pete that you would be more comfortable with a revised Order to Comply which explicitly allows activities to satisfy your Cleanup and Abatement Order and we can do this — our counsel just i wanted to know how much work remained in your view. Thanks for sending all the New Era records. Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538:7601 (office) 53 0.53 8.2140 (fax) i -----Original Message ----- From: Bob Hosea ,Emailto:bhosea@dfg.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:09 AM To: Thomas, Chris Cc: Josh Brennan; Jeff Drongesen; Jenny,Marr; Kent Smith;.Lisa Stone; Sherry Howell Subject: Streambed agreement for New Era Mine, Butte County Chris - After discussing the issues surrounding the New Era mine in Butte County I asked the area warden from DFG to go back out and revisit the site. I have also reviewed the pictures •you sent to me and reviewed what information I have been able to find on the previous 1600 agreement originally issued by warden Gayland Taylor. I have discussed the issues, surrounding activities at the mine site with warden Brennan and we both agree that work at the'New Era has gone right up to the edge of what would-be considered the stream zone as. it relates to obtaining a 1600 agreement. What work that has been done within the area that might be considered the stream zone was ordered by the County on an emergency basis. A 1600 agreement is not required to complete emergency work. The only requirement is that the Department be notified that the work has been done. This the mine operators need to do. We both also feel that now' that the emergency activities have been completed, if the. operators of the mine plan to encroach any closer to the stream for any activities, they. are going to need to obtain a streambed alteration agreement for future work Warden Brennan also feels that there are currently no ongoing water pollution violations at the site due to the settling ponds present that intercept any runoff from the mining activities before it reaches the creek. In summary then, I believe that the mine operators are not in violation of section 1602 at this time. I further recommend that if they intend to conduct further work along the creek that they file a notification and obtain a 1600 agreement, if for no other reason than to protect themselves from,potettial future legal action. If you wish to make that a requirement of any future permits from your agency then that is fine as long. as it is specified that it is for work moving closer to the stream than where the current disturbance are located or, if it relates to. drainage issues where runoff water from the site would be directed into the creek. Please let me know if there is anything further I can assist with in this matter. -Bob Hosea Environmental Scientist North Central Region Calif ornia. Department of Fish and Game (916) 704-9156 002362 0 Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Sent: To: Cc: ! Friday, February 01, 200810:22 AM Page., l of J.- Thi�flsil,u�aita rharles: Calarco, Pete; Thomas, Chris; Connelly, Bill; Dolan, Jane; Kirk, Maureen; 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: he "mining operation yards per day" is 1. The USE Permit-1MI 5 issued Permit which has already mined" 00,000 cubic yards" ed to a maximum of 0from your Dec. 20 Iettere.Ev n being transformed into a was there no Application for Variance(Chapter 24-50 Butte County Code)? What Special if this is legal(?) why Circumstances exist was such variation 24-50.1) Why no Notice of Public Hearing, which is required in Chapter 24-50.15? l be ked the if the u ter or which the Use emit wits as granted has ceased or has beeins suspended or a period oftywelve consecutive ager if the use for whit p months. (ord. f o. 31992 intwhichexh he stat s 16 Jan1-24-95 ou have In 1991" the New possession a Mines partne ship is no written thas dissolved, Mr. Logan in his own hand from we are inactive." 4 Aug 1992" I agree to meet your conditions and am asking you to please rescind our waste • dischargerequirements." is a year between these letters where there has obviously states, been no mining activity. Order no. 92-200 as td b the California Regional Water Quality Control Board undesection g"Order No. 91-003, adopted 25 January 1991, prescribes requirements for New Era Mines, a limited partnership operating a placer mine, in Butte County .... THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WAS DISSOLVED IN 1990 AND NO MINING HAS TAKEN PLACE SINCE THEN. THERE ARE NO CURRENT PLANS TO RESUME MINING." 3. Chapter 24-45.65 " Use permit PRIOR TO REVOCATION" The rute a esideic nuisance. nts nts of dry creek roadNG have seethe Otaffic WILL SET A DATE FOR HEARING on this private roadhours commute f 15 to 20 employees nce the new operation t and coming from work in shifts and heavy ars a day using it to a rush as Cats and equipment from dump truck s.Th s must,meet the ome adefinition of public trips, satnctean Chaipter 32A-2. We are requesting rock separation plants in and o abatement of this nuisance and a hearing about it.Use ode These are just some of ant to do, r jouections in start to tryon to the regulate thette mine under the Grading and MiningPermitssection-Chapter staff seems tow Y 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 13-105? 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 3.Chapter 13-112 a) Were there ever any annual inspections. b)did the owner submit the required annual reports? in o We believe the county staff is itieing hasty s making ed on this on and the decision soon s one for the Planninit or ga new one.taff has had three We think much more public Commission to make ats ofthe mine so farg inause of and onehe above cited rdinances.CounS with the concerned citizens. This decision needs to be private meeting with the operator discussed in a public forum. We also feel that the mine must aesl�rht effort to comply with e during 1county and state regulations after theyyswere ca cauup ght n huge operation and only ormaking 9 violations speaks loudly for their concern for regulatory agencies, the environment, and local residents. ` D ." 6 Ij Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Sent: To:. Cc: Page:102... Friday;February 01, 2008 10:49 AM Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete; Thomas, Chris; Connelly, Bill; Dolan, Jane; Subject: RE: New Era Mine on Dry Creek We agree that the information provided by Richard Meyers below raises too many questions about the legality of the New Era Mine's current operation. We do insist on further evaluation and a decision by the County that will protect the rights of Butte County citizens and the environment of a beautiful area in our County. From:. Sent:Wri-�EFd& nary 01, 2008 10:22 AM To: cthisUethwaite@buttecounty.net; pcalarco@buttecounty.net; Chris thomas; bconnelly@buttecounty.net; jdolan@buttecounty.net; mkirk@buttecounty.net; cjoslassen@buttecounty.net; kyamaguchl@buttecounty.net; tsnellings@buutecounty.net • Su lett: 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: 1. The USE Permit-UP81-135 issued for the "mining operation limited to a maximum 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 Ietter.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 placer mine, in Butte County .... THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WAS DISSOLVED IN 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 nuisance. PLANNING COMMISSION WILL SET A DATE FOR HEARING PRIOR TO 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 of 15 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. `fl1023t'4 Page 2 of -2 • 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 13-105? 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 3.Chapter 13-112 a) Were there ever any annual inspections. b)did the owner submit the required annual reports? • 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. IN 11 A ll%Af%O 002365 Page 1 of 1 • Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Craig, Douglas (Douglas.Craig c@Dconservation.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:16 AM To: Calarco, Pete; Snellings, Tim; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Thomas, Chris Subject: RE: clarification/correction of my statements Thanks Pete. While it may turn out that there is no boundary or encroachment issue, there may still be issues that would require an amendment to the reclamation plan. CCR Section 3502(e) provides that "An amended reclamation plan shall be filed if the lead agency determines, after an inspection, that the surface mining operation can no longer be reclaimed in accordance with its approved reclamation plan. Such amended plan shall incorporate current reclamation standards ... For example, if there is mine -related disturbance, and the approved reclamation plan does not address the reclamation of that disturbance, the plan should be amended (provided the County makes the determination indicated above). Here's a link to the current SMARA statutes and regulations: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/omr/smara/Documents/010107Note26. pdf Greg and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with the County, the CVRWQCB, and the operator • yesterday. With any luck, we may be able to resolve the SMARA compliance issues at this site with a positive outcome for all parties. --Doug From: Calarco, Pete[mallto:PCalarco@buttecounty.net] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:33 AM To: Snellings, Tim; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Craig, Douglas; Thomas, Chris Subject: clarification/correction of my statements Thank you for meeting yesterday on the New Era Mine. I need to correct some statements I made during our brainstorming session after the meeting. Early in our brainstorming session, I mentioned that the current mining activity is outside of the boundary of the 1982 rec plan/permit. This may not be the case. "Chris Thomas briefed me further on the file materials and it may be that the Planning Commission approval in 1982 included mining activities for the entire parcel. At this point, I suggest that we reserve confirmation of this aspect until we research the file materials further — contrary to what I mentioned earlier in the meeting. Thank you. -pete Pete Calarco Assistant Director Butte County Development Services 7 County Center Dr Oroville CA 95965 (530) 538-2167 002366 �- `' � . • Page 1�of2 •Thistlethwaite, Charles ." � " , � y * �' ' •� -; - _ ,� From: Snellings, Tim • " • �• - • -. .. - i ' � •Senf: Friday, February•01, 2008 8:53 AM � � • , . i' � - � - � . •To: Thistlethwaite, Charles . � - - - • � `Cc:• : _• Yamaguchi, Kim; Haddix Brian;•Calarco, Pete; McCracken, Shari _ j � Subject: RE: New .Era Mine - �• '• -�:� � � • ' ' - Thanks Chuck for your focus, .progress and follow through. It's good to hear hat County Counsel. really is helping us explore a way through this difficult one. I'm keeping Kim and Brian in tlie,loop on this as we progress. Please ° y - keep me updated as thindevelops further.today:�Do you have,adate/time set up yet for a'meeting with the •, • :neighbors and the�operators? We should get somethingbooked soon. _ •, � • -Talk to you soon, Tim •-� `�.., - ; - - .` .., _ - �. � . + From: Thistlethwaite, Charles • � ti � � ' Sent: Fri .2/1/2008 8:52 AM • "' � .. _ - ;. }' To: Calarco, Pete;.Snellings, Tim � � ,, � • ' Subject: RE: New Era Mlne - � � • ,Chris Thomas and I "met with' Neil and Felix foralmosf two hours yesterday evening -bringing them up to speed on �i � r the mine and strateaizindabout Monday's determinatian ani order. Ovft�B,�J,'j�eraS veru pleased at their ' .,•�.- � , u• Chris is preparing. a couple of draft determinations and orders for review on Monday. Neil and Felix are lined up � to review our documents at :10:00 am on Monday. Y: _ � +•, ... • � _ • .Thanks, � • � � � • ,- � � _ � . ' � { , _ _ Chuck ' �. -- , t Charles S. Thlstlethwalte,"AICP � • - : , , , I ' ' � ' Mannger, Planning Dlv/ston '' � , +� . ,. � , . -. � ` ,Butte Counfy D�artmenf of Deve/opmenP Services � - � - , • , j . - E-matl: CThlstlethwalteCcDbuttecounty.net .. ; •_ 'Phone: (S30) 538-6572 FA_ X: (530)'538-2140 , � - -_ e ., * _ t '; I � r �• • �. From: Calarco, Pete ' � • � � - - Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:31 PM. •, _, - ; •� To: Snellings, Tim � ��, � � �"� - ' . •• Cc:•Haddfx,�Br`fan; McCracken, Shari; Thistlethwaite, Charles - •. s�� � �,�Y� • h Subject: RE: New Era Mine � ' - aye ��� ' +; �I • � • Pa a 1.of2" Thistlethwaite, Charles.. From: Thistlethwaite, Charles ; y Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:52 AM' • To:,,:L Calarco, Pete; Snellings, Tim I • Subject: RE: New Era Mine Chris Thomas and 1, met with Neil and Felix for almost two hours yesterday evening bringing them up to speed on .a' k'' the mine and stra about .Monda 's'determination'and order." Overall, I was ve leased at their 1 hPlnfulness.. + Chris is preparing a couple of draft determinations and orders for review on Monday. Neil and Felix are lined up to review our documents y y Thanks;: Chuck.,,*s _ ❑ Charles S. Thistlethwalte, AICP - , Manager, Planning Division Butte County Department of Development'Services ; E -mall: CThlstlethwaite ctuttecounty net Phone: (530) 538-6572 FAX: (530) 538-2140 From: Caiarco,,Pete ►� Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:31 PM - ' To: Snellings,_Tim Cc: Haddix, Brian; McCracken, Shari; Thistlethweite,-Charles r Subject: RE: New Era'Mine L� .I called Sup. Yamaguchi and filled him in with some of the background. He asked for a map,showing,the location and we will work on that.- -pete From: Yamaguchi,. Kim Sent: Thursday, January 31, 20082:52 PM Y R, xw' Snellings, Tim •Cc: Haddlx,:Brian;'McCracken, Shari; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete, A Subject: RE:'New Era Mine This has a high potential for environmental damage. The company must ' rovideassurances it can comply with all • . concerns. What local_ permitshave been issued?. Kim k: Yamaguchi U-0,236 B I III Page 1 of.1 • 'Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Thomas, Chris i Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:05 PM To: Snellings, Tim Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: New Era Mine - 20 cubic yards per day limit in Phase I 10 1 • Tim, ,I had previously marked all references to "Phase I" and discussions regarding phasing and 20 cubic yards per day limits in the microfiche file for UP 81-136 and, in reviewing_ these references, I can find no explicit discussion or mention of more than 20 cubic yards per day being moved, dug up or otherwise processed in order to end up with 20,cubic yards (or less)'of gold -bearing material. In a January 5, 1982 response by'Ron Logan (or his representative) to 24 questions from Steve Streeter, the letter does discuss — for about a page or so — how the mine operation would process material and it provides a flow sheet to diagram the approach. The description is of a cut and cover operation with pits 100-200 feet wide by 300-400 feet long dug out, processed and filled back in. One might deduce from the flow sheet that the soil and rock ultimately washed for gold.might be considerably less than the amount.dug out initially, but again, I see no explicit reference as to whether or hot 20 cubic yards is an end product of.a much larger initial cut. Let me know If you'd like to see these references and discuss further. Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) i Page 1 of 1 Thomas, Chris j From: Calarco, Pete 'Sent: Thursday, January 17, 200810:33 AM To: Snellings, Tim; Thistlethwalte, Charles; dcraig c@consrv.ca.gov; Thomas, Chris Subject: clarification/correction of my statements Thank you for meeting yesterday on the New Era Mine. I need to correct some statements I made during our brainstorming session after the meeting. Early in our brainstorming session, I mentioned that the. current mining activity is outside of the boundary of the 1982 me plan/permit This may not be the case. Chris Thomas briefed. me further on the file materials 'and it may be that the Planning Commission approval in 1982 included mining activities for. the entire parcel. At. this point, I suggest that we reserve confirmation of this aspect until we research the file materials further — contrary to what I mentioned earlier In the meeting. Thank youi: —pate Pete Calarco Assistant Director Butte County Development Services 7 County. Center Dr i Oroville CA 95965 (530) 538-2167 f ,Page F:of.l... • Thomas:, Chris From:. Thomas, Chris . Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 8:46. AM To: Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject:. FW:.New.Era Mine -.Contract Addendum Follow-up: Chuck, the operatorsbrought:in.the $1,740 for the New Era Mine inspection on Friday. Chris L :From.: Scott Friend [mailto:SFriend@PMCWorld.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29,.2007.5:50. PM _ To: Thistlethwaite' Charles tc: Thomas,.Chris; Nash. Gonzalez �!. 'Subject. New Zra Mine- Contract Addendum Follow-up . Chuck, 'Good evening. I wanted to follow-up on the email that I sent earl ier.this. week concerning the.New.Era Mine and the check on the status of the revised contract services. proposal that PMC provided to the County to.provide 8MARA.services on this mine. My reason.for being.so':pushy" on this is that I believe that.'Chris and:Nash are • scheduled-to:inspect the.facility on Wednesday of next week.. That being the case, I need to have authorization or approval-of.our proposal from the County prior to the inspection. Also, assuming that the contract is approved and we do attend and undertake the inspection on Wednesday,.[ might suggest that in addition to Chris, that you (Chuck) or Pete additionally attend the inspection on the County's behalf: My rationale for this request is that due to.the failure of.the mine to have been inspected in past years, and due.to the potential for strong "input" on.this matter from OMR, it might be -beneficial for all -parties involved to have a Senior -level manager involved. in this project. While I don't -.intend to induce shivers and'shaKes, I:think' ..both of.your Yuba County mining experiences (i.e. difficult circumstances involving SMARA•and a mine)' may come into play on this project. . .. Thank you, in advance for your attention. to this. matter. l i _ :. -Scott Friend; AICP ..;PMC.* -:Chico . 530-894-3469 sfriend @p mcworld. com 002371 -Page :. of 2 • Thomas, Chris From;. Thomas, Chris Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:03 PM Tc: .'SASPlanning @sbcglobal.net' Subject: RE: New Era Mine.(Ron Logan, owner), 4095 Dry Creek Road, Butte County Attachments:.New Era 9982. Site Plan ScreenRes.tif; NewEraMine—location_screenres.pdf; New. Era Board 1.982 Minute5.pdf, New Era 7281 letter to Ron Logan.pdf Steve - .Attached are a .few documents which may jog your memory (apologies for the poor quality of some — our microfiche printer'beI * in a museum). Again, I'm. trying to build a history hereforthe record: The original application: was evidently quite.controversial, with particular concerns from Dry t Creek Road residents abou.. , :impacts to the, creek and.their wells. Mr. Logan was apparently an instructor in mining at:Butte College: Thanks for any help! Chris -Thomas- Associate homas Associate Planner: Butte County -Department of Development Services 530:53:8.6706 - (direct) 530:538.760.1 (office) 530:538.2140;(fax) From: Stephen A: Streeter[mailto:sasplan ning@sbcglobal. net]. Sunt: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:01 PM To: Thomas, Chris Subject: Re: New Era Mine (Ron Logan, owner), .4095 Dry Creek. Road, Butte County Chris - I worked for the County from 1977 to 1987 (4 years w/ the Environmental Review Dept. & 6 years.:with the Planning Dept.).. In'2004 to 2005, I did some consulting with the County, including serving as Interim Planning Manager from Nov. -'04 to July '.05. My memories from 25 years ago are vague. The name Ron Logan sounds familiar. I don't recall..where. Dry Creek Road. is located: If you could scan & e-mail (or mail to .the address below) a site plan, .other exhibits; environmental document & staff report w/. list of conditions, I'll. attempt to help you' .ith any recollections of the New Era operation after the permit was approved. . Stephen Streeter, AICP: SAS Planning Consulting 767 Mulberry Ln. Davis, CA 95616=3430 (530) 979=0095 -business "Thomas, Chris" <CThomas@buttecounty.het> wrote: .:Dear Mr. Streeter,. ' . l'am.writing regarding the above mine, which received a_use permit (81-135) in May; 1982 fo conduct surface jmining operations for gold..Apparently this operation. completely fell from the County's oversight as we>.have no. �I Thomas; Chris From:. Thomas, Chris Sent:. Friday, December 14, 2007 2:57 PM . T�.. 'HLOMELI@dfg.ca.gov'; 'Jenny Marr' ii Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete; Breedon, Dan j. ..Subject:. 16.00 permit for the New Era Mine;.4095 Dry Creek Road (Butte Valley area) Attachments: DSCF461.2:JPG;.D8CF4645.JPG; NewEra_120507_016,JPG Hello;: The above mine has recently expanded operations considerably on the hillside immediately west of -Dry. Creek: and,.although a:permit was issued in 1982.for the mine; we believe it may have lapsed. Condition of Approval #2 for Use. Permit 81-135 reauired the operator to obtain"a current streambed an alteration permit, for y work within or.near. Dry.Creek." It appears the operator was issueda permit by Gayland Taylor for the period. between April 20,,1988.and April..20, 1989 (Notification No. II-240-88),. but I have no other record of a current or valid. 1600'. permit (although the operator maintains the 1988 permit is still valid): We are researching the.operation.in regards to°compliance with the original permit, County.Code and SMARA. . Josh .Brennan was out at the: site last June and reported that it was a small operation,'but I believe much of the. disturbance evident in the attached pictures has occurred since that time. Josh told me a few.days ago that he: would tryto..gei out:next week; I'm writing to ask if you or any other local D.FG colleagues have any.knowledge.of. this mine. `From.our:site visit .on December 5, 2007, it appears that recent disturbance has occurred in the • riparian zone, .although we. saw no obvious evidence of sediment iri the creek itself. (That said, I have received. phonecalls from downstream residents on DryCreek.Road that,sediment-has been in the stream.overthe past month:) Phil Woodward from the Regional Board was also out at the site during our visit. I've asked'Sandy Avilla with DFG in Sacramento about the 1600 permit.status for this property but.have not heard back. As we' must address this situation as quickly as possible, it would be a big help to know how the current operation stands with Fish and Game. •Sincerely, Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Developmeiit Services 530:538:67.06 (direct). L 530.538.7601.01fice) 2140 ax 530.538.(f.) _ i i - i Page:;.1-: of j • Thomas, Chris. ! Flom: Tliomas,.Ctiris Sent: Friday, .December 14, 2007 10:44 AM -To 'Nash Gonzalez'. Cc.. ,Thistlethwaite, Charles; Breedon, Dan Subject:.New Era :Nash; ` ... Attached are three screen resolution exhibits that are referenced in the 1982. reclamation plan' forthe.New:Era. I'd say the currerit plan:presented.to us by. Mr. Gales during.our site visit.substantially,deviates from whatls presented in these exhibits. Note especially the phasing exhibit.showing expansion over a period of five.years I have photocopied a January 6, 1982 explanatory letter to the Planning Commission from either Mr:. Logan or;his representative.in-which the cut and cover approach will allow reclamation as the.work proceeds: "The mining operation will proceed_by excavating an initial.cufi(Area. "A") approximately-100-200 ft., wide by 300: to 400-.ft.-:lon.g::. . . (d6pendin;g.onwidth 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 removedfrom. area (B).placed to fill. in area (A). The'area will then - .be shaped and.top=soil. replaced and replanted native to area." .I'spoke-with Dan about the idea that the County would have taken Mr. Logan's land as some sort of financial: assurance mechanism in the event he defaulted on reclamation — Dan thought it.highly. unlikely that the County. ' would ever engage in such an arrangement. However; I am waiting to hear back from a cbntact.in the Treasurer's Office Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County. Department of Development Services j 53.0:538:.6.7.06 (direct) 530:538.7601 (office) 530.538.2.140 (fax) - :. T' .Thomas;:Ch.ris .. From:' Thomas, Chris, Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:12 AM To: Blixt;:Thomas Su4jecr:.RE: New. Era Mine (APN 041-080-027), 4095 Dry Creek.Road Okay Tom -thanks :for looking. Chris From: Blixt; Thomas Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:06 AM To: • Calarco, Pete :. . Cc:. Edell, S.tuart;'Thomas, Chris; Crump, .Mike; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Breedon,.Dan Subject: RE:. NeW, Era :Mine. (APN 041-080-027), 4095.Dry Creek Road I looked in our performance bond tracking information. that goes back to the 70's and did not find a bond.for this . 1 project Also it was well before .my time here at the County -.maybe Stuart or Mike know if this mine was ever.tracked by. Public Works but if.this mine was pre -code Chapter 13 then .Public Resources Code Section 2770 would have I applied and that gives inspection reporting responsibility to the lead agency and I do not know if Public Works was ever the lead agency formining operations, again maybe Stu or Mike can shed. some light on that: From: Calarco, Pete 'Sent. Monday, November 19, 2007 9:24 AM . To: Blixt, Thomas;'Edell, Stuart; Thomas, Chris; Crump, Mike Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Breedon, Dan; 'Nash Gonzalez'; Warson, Jack Subject: .P,E: NeW. Era Mine. (APN 041-080-027),.4095. Dry Creek Road Tom, the County. Code section came after this mine and likely this mine dropped off the radar when this code was: implemented(??).. Did Public Works maintain a spreadsheet or inspection .log or.anything else that would have centralized.the records/locations/names of active.or known mines in 1980's? i. From:. Blixt, Thomas '`Sent:.. Monday,. November 19, 2007 9.:18 AM To: Edell, Stuart; Thomas, Chris; Crump, Mike ..Cc-..Thistlethwaite, Charles; Breedon, Dan; Calarco, Pete; 'Nash. Gonzalez'; Warson, Jack Subject: RE: NeW.Era Mine (APN 041-080-027),.4095 D y.Creek Road Chris -1 cannot find that Public Works ever received a performance bond from: Ron Logan back inahe 80's: 'Also;:. ! if Public Works never received an interim management plan from Development Services Planning Division we . would not have know to inspect.percc section 13-109: (a) Within:ninety (90) days of a surface mining operation becoming idle, as, defined in. section .13-'102 • and section 2770(h) of the Public Resources, Code; the operator shall submit. to, the planning division.for review'.arid approval an interim management.plan: The interim management plan shall be considered an amendment -to the -approved reclamation plan. and shall include measures the operator will.'nplement to I ..J -maintain the site in compliance with all permit. conditions of the approved: reclamation plan, mining ili .. Page2:of 3 and/or use ermit. P. . (b) The interim management plan may remain in effect fora period not to exceed five (5) years, :at which time;the county. shall do one of the following: (1) Renew the interim managementplanfor an`additional period not to exceed.five (5) years. (2) Require the operator to commence reclamation in accordance with the approved reclamation" plan. (c) The financial assurance required by section 13.-1.06 shall remain in effect during the penod•the surface mining oeration.is idle.. (d) The:plannmg division shall review and:approve the interim management plan in accordance with . section 2770(h) of the`Public Resources Code. (e) The public works department shall periodically -inspect each idle mine to assure compliance witl the a roved interim management plan..Ofd:.No. 3083 2 8-10-93 From: Edell, Stuart -Sent:. Monday; -November 19, 2007 9:08 AM To: Thomas; Chris; Crump, Mike; Blixt, Thomas Cc: Thistiethwaite,.Charies; Breedon, Dan; Celarco, Pete; 'Nash Gonzalez'; Warson, Sack Subject: RE: New Era Mine (APN 041-080-027), 4095 Dry Creek Road We definitely would like to -have one of our inspectors go with you. Where are they putting all the -dirt? From:.Thomas, Chris Sent: Friday,. November 16, 2007 9:08 AM To: Crump' ':Mike; Edell, Stuart;.Blixt, Thomas Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles;. Breedon, Dan; Calarco, .Pete; Nash Gonzalez •. Subject: New Era_ Mine (APN 041-080-027), 4095 Dry Creek Road Mike, Tom and. Stu, The above, mine has expanded (the attached were provided by the operator) over the past several months and appears to be operating without a current mining permit. UP 81-35 (incorrectly shown as UP 81-135 and denied in our GIS) was issued to Ron Logan in 1982 for a:small gold mining operation along (but not in) Dry Creek.at the above APN and address. Apparently Mr. Logan's operation sank from view — SMARA requirements for annual.: inspections, financialassurances and operating reports.have never been met as, far as I can tell —.and I can find no documentation in the Planning files aside from the original permit application and reclamation plan in microfiche: Condition 3 required a reclamation performance bond of $3,000 - would Public Works have taken that moneyin back in 1982? Condition 22 required that '[p]eriodic.review of the site, no less than three (3) times per.year, is,to be accomplished. by the Public Works Department, pursuant to Section .13-109 of the County Code." :Do you have any record or ,memory of these reviews? I'm trying to pull together any available documentation in preparation for referring this matter to County Counsel. We have met with the current operators, who presented us with a Plan of Operation for this gold mine. They. state there is. minimal. truck traffic to and from the site but I have not verified this. The Regional Board is aware of the operation; a SWPPP has been prepared but not yet approved by the Board. We are planning a SMARA inspection with.our consultant in the first week of.December— given the substantial grading evident in the.photos 1 thought you might want to join us. I Chris. Thomas 4 Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538:6706 (direct) 530.5383601 -.(office) 530.538.2140.(fax) L J� 7 Page 1 of 1 ` Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Thomas, Chris i Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:38 AM To: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete; Breedon, Dan Subject: mining without a permit at 4095 Dry Creek Road (APN 0417080-027) Attachments: DSC00608Jpg; DSC00490Jpg; DSC00492Jpg; DSC00526Jpg; DSC00538Jpg; DSC00544Jpg; DSC00552Jpg; DS000578Jpg; DSC00579Jpg; DSC00580Jpg; DSC00589Jpg , The operators of the New Era Mine have been informed that they are mining without a current permit (the previously issued 81-135 has, as far as I can tell, lapsed). As you can see from the attached photos supplied by the operator, it Is a substantial operation. Lee Ogle, the representative I have spoken with, indicated they would sue the County rather than go through a .new permit process. The operators are scheduled to be here tomorrow at 9:30 — could we meet briefly today to discuss? I have to leave at 3:00 this afternoon — any time before then would be great. Thanks, Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services i 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) " y i i t � i i Pap 1,of 1.. • Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Yamaguchi, Kim Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:52 PM To: Snellings, Tim Cc: Haddix, Brian; McCracken, Shari; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: RE: New Era Mine This has a high potential for environmental damage. The company must provide assurances it can comply with all concerns. What local permits have been issued? Kim K. Yamaguchi From: Snellings, Tim Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:35 AM To: Yamaguchi, Kim Cc: Haddix, Brian; McCracken, Shari; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: New Era Mine Importance: High Kim: FYI, we are meeting with the neighbors (about 12),of the New Era Mine on Monday at 4 pm. This mine (on Dry • Creek Road) is a relatively small gold mine that has several compliance issues. We are trying to'solve the issues' at a staff level, but we need to make sure that we are not missing anything. In order to get there, we have scheduled a meeting with the neighbors only ... not including the Mine Owners/Operators, since some of the neighbors are fearful of the Owners/Operators. Our current strategy is to develop a Compliance Plan which the New Era folks must agree to. We want to make sure the plan addresses neighbors concerns as well as the legal issues that we have identified. We are working with two state agencies on this as well. We know that they are pushing to keep operating while they work on compliance. Our issues are that they need to stabilize the site (which they have partially achieved), and come into compliance with state/local laws/permits (Current Permit, Financial Assurance and Reclamation Plan). After our meeting on Monday, we will have a sense if this is possible or not. My fear is that'they will walk', leaving a site that will cost millions of dollars to reclaim. If you'd like to dis this further, feel free to give me a call at home this we at r at the office on. Monday atThis has the potential to get'VERY HOT'. Take care, Tim 00238.1 EI• i3• Page..l..of 1, Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Craig, Douglas [Douglas.Craig@cons6rvation.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 4:24 PM To: Thomas, Chris Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Luksic, Michael Subject: RE: Order to Comply Letter, New Era Mine Chris, We'll take a look and get back to you. We want to make sure that, if the operator were to fail to .comply with this order, you would be able to impose administrative penalties. 'I hope to get back to you by Monday afternoon. -Doug From: Thomas, Chris [mailto:CThomas@buttecounty.net] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 4:19 PM To: Craig, Douglas Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Order to Comply Letter, New Era Mine Hello Doug, Attached is a draft of our Notice to Comply letter to the operators of the New Era Mine. 1f you have the time, we would appreciate your review and comments. Thanks very much for your assistance. Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) 'i I i Page.1 of 1 • Thistlethwaite; Charles From: Snellings, Tim Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:07 AM To: Thomas, Chris f Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: New Era Clarification #1 Importance: High Chris: Please draft a letter of clarification to Mr. Ogle informing him that our Order does NOT and is NOT intended to tell them NOT to comply with the RWQCB Order for site stabilization. Let's discuss. Tim Tim Snellings, Director. County of Butte Department of Development Services 7 County. Center Drive Oroville; CA 95965 530-538-6821 (direct) UM Page 1 of.1 Ij • Thistiethwaite, Charles vi9 From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 200810:34 AM To: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: FW: Order To Comply, New Era Mine FYI Chris From: Phil Woodward. [mailto: pwoodward@waterboards.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:43 AM To: Thomas, Chris Subject: Re: Order To Comply, New Era Mine Chris, Thanks for the clairification on the 20 yards of soil. As far as how much more work is needed, I will do an inspection this week (I don't know when yet) and get back to you. Phil >>> 'Thomas, Chris" <CThomas@buttecounty.net> 2/5/2008 9:38 AM >>> Good Morning Phil, Attached please find a copy of the Order presented yesterday to the operators of the New Era Mine. Please note that the Order does not take effect until such time as a determination is made by the Planning. Commission on this matter. An email and letter of clarification will be sent to Mr. Ogle and Mr. Logan stating that, as with the December 20 Notice of Violation, any activities to stabilize or restore the current operation as ordered by -a state (including the Clean-up and Abatement Order from your office) or local agency would not be considered a violation of the Order. Work to stabilize the site per,your agency's 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 your agency's cleanup and abatement order, it would not be considered a violation of our Order. Could you give us an assessment of how much and what types of stabilization work remains at the New Era site? Staff was under the impression that the majority of the heavy soil work had been completed. Thanks, Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530:538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) • Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:39 AM To: Phil Woodward Cc: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Order To Comply, New Era Mine Attachments: Final Order To Comply New Era Mine.pdf Good Morning Phil, o• Page l of 1 Attached please find a copy of the Order presented yesterday to the operators of the New Era Mine. Please note that the Order does not take effect until such time as a*determination is made by the Planning Commission on this matter. An email and letter of clarification will be sent to Mr. Ogle and Mr. Logan stating that, as with the December 20.Notice of Violation, any activities to stabilize or restore the current operation as ordered by a state (including the Clean-up and Abatement Order from your office) or local agency would not be considered a violation of the Order. Work to stabilize the site per your agency's 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 your agency's cleanup and abatement order,- it would not be considered a violation of our Order.. Could you give us an assessment of how much and what types of stabilization work remains at the New Era site? Staff was under the impression that the majority of the heavy soil work had been completed. Thanks, Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) 002385 Page l.of.l is Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:38 AM To: Craig, Douglas Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Order to Comply, New Era Mine, Butte County Attachments: Cert Cover Letter Final Order To Comply (CST Rev).pdf, Final. Order To Comply New Era . Mine.pdf Doug, Attached please find the Order to Comply presented yesterday at 4:30 p.m. to the New Era Operators, Lee Ogle and Frank Noland. I modified somewhat the compliance schedule you forwarded, but I think it gives us a basis with which to assess progress with compliance. Already the operators have called asking about how they can comply with the Regional Board's cleanup and abatement order if limited to 20 cubic yards of material per day (Page 4 of the Order). Also attached is the cover letter to be sent via certified mail addressing this question. In brief, if they have to move more than 20 cubic yards per day to comply, it would not.be considered a violation of our order. The matter has been set for the March 13 Planning Commission hearing. Thanks very much for your assistance on such short notice. 1.0 Sincerely, Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706. (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) iri ��','• 002386 Fj STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION: OFFICE OF MINE RECLAMATION 801 K STREET • MS 09-06 • SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 PHONE 916/323-7198 • FAX 916/445-6066 TDD 916/324-2555 • WEBSITE conservation co gov January 24, 2008' Mr. Chris Thomas Department of Development Services County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Thomas: FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COST ESTIMATE.FOR NEW ERA MINE (CA MINE #01-04- 0031), COUNTY OF BUTTE The Department of Conservation (Department), Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) received a financial assurance cost estimate (cost estimate) in the amount of $24;801 for the New Era mine on January 14, 2008. This mine Is operated by North Continent Land and Timber. Inc. The County of Butte is the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) lead agency for this surface mining operation. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2774(c) provides that, prior to approval of a cost estimate, a lead agency must submit the cost estimate and all related documentation to the Department atone time. This requirement is clarified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (CCR), Section $805. OMR has determined that the documentation accompanying the recent cost estimate submission for the New Era Mine is incomplete. Specifically, it contains no indication from Butte County, as required by CCR Section 3805, that the cost estimate amount is adequate. For this reason, we are returning the cost estimate to you at this time. Please submit a copy of the proposed cost estimate, and all related documentation to OMR at one time. Please also include a cover letter indicating that your agency considers the financial assurance amount to be adequate to conduct and complete reclamation on the mined lands in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. If you have any questions, l can be reached at Mike Luksic(aD-conservation.ca.aov or at (916) 445-0395. Sincerely, ✓����� t Mike,Luksic, P.G. #7310 Engineering Geologist Compliance Section COUNTY JAN 2 0 SE11ViCE Vic rDeparturent of Conrervatiou'c mission is to protect CaGfomians and t(rcirenvironnrcnt Ly: (protecting fives 'and property from cartfiqu4s and (andrfides, 2• nsuring safe mining and od audgas driflurg; Conserving Cafifomia's farmrand, andSaving anergy andresourres througfi mcycr, rg 0 ThQm'ss, Chris From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Friday, February 01, 200811:22 AM To: 'Bob Hosea' Cc: Josh Brennan; Jeff Drongesen; Jenny Marr; Kent Smith; Lisa Stone; Sherry Howell; 'Phil Woodward' Subject: RE: Streambed agreement for New Era Mine, Butte County Attachments: Grading_Riparian Zone 2.JPG; Grading Riparian Zone 1.JPG Grading_Npadan Grading_R1padan Zone 2JPG (7... Zone 1JPG (8... Bob, Thanks for your reply.. I'would point out that the photos'I sent you - which I believe depict bulldozed trees within the riparian zone - were taken on December 5, 2007, before the RWQCB's December 17, 2007 Cleanup and Abatement Order and before any emergency work (as ordered by the'RWQCB, not the County)had been performed. Indeed the work in the riparian zone apparently occurred over the summer and fall, subsequent to Mr. Brennan's June visit to the site. Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706 (direct) • 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) -----Original Message ----- From: Bob Hosea-[mailto:bhosea@dfg.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:09 AM To: Thomas, Chris. Cc: Josh Brennan; Jeff Drongesen; Jenny Marr; Kent Smith; Lisa Stone; Sherry Howell Subject:- Streambed agreement for New Era Mine, Butte County Chris - After -discussing the issues surrounding the New Era mine in Butte County I asked the area warden from DFG to go back out and revisit the site. I have also reviewed the pictures you sent to me and reviewed what information I have been able to find on the previous 1600 agreement originally issued by warden Gayland Taylor. I have discussed the issues surrounding activities at the mine site with warden Brennan and we both agree that work at the New Era has gone right up to the edge of what would be considered the stream zone as it relates to obtaining a 1600 agreement. What work 'that has' been done within the area that might be.considered the stream zone was ordered by the County on an emergency basis. A 1600 agreement is not required to complete emergency work. The only requirement is that the Department be notified that. the work has been done. This the mine operators need to do. We both also feel that now that the emergency activities have been completed, if the operators of the mine .plan to encroach any closer to the stream for any activities, they are going to need to obtain a streambed alteration agreement for future work. Warden . Brennan also feels that there are currently no ongoing water pollution violations at the site due to the settling ponds present that intercept any runoff from the mining activities before it reaches the creek. • In summary then, I believe that the mine operators are not in violation of section 1602 at this time. I. further recommend that if they intend to conduct further work along the creek that they file a notification and obtain a 1600 agreement, if for no other reason than to protect themselves from potential future legal action. If you wish to make that a requirement of any future permits from your agency then that is fine as long as it is 1 ii specified that it is for work moving closer to the stream than where the current - disturbance are located or if it relates to drainage issues .where runoff water from the site would be directed into the creek. • Please let me know if there is anything further I can assist with, in this matter. I . -Bob Hosea Environmental Scientist !� North Central Region California Department of Fish and Game '(916) 704-9156 si• II• 2 McMillan, Kim From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:05 PM -" To Snellings, Tim Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: New Era Mine - 20 cubic yards per day limit In Phase I Tim, • -rage 1 or 1 I had previously marked all references to "Phase I- and discussions regarding phasing and 20 cubic yards per day limits in the microfiche file for UP 81-136 and, in reviewing these references, I can find no explicit discussion or mention of more than -20 cubic yards per day being moved, dug up or otherwise processed in order to end up with 20 cubic yards (or less) of gold -bearing material. In a January 5, 1982 response by Ron Logan (or his representative) to 24 questions from Steve Streeter, the letter does discuss — for about a page or so — how the mine operation would process material and it provides a flow sheet to diagram the approach. The description is of a cut and cover operation with pits 100-200 feet wide by 300-400 feet long dug out, processed and filled back In. One might deduce from the flow sheet that the soil and rock ultimately washed for gold might be considerably less than the amount dug out initially, but again, I see no explicit reference as to.whether or not 20 cubic yards Is an end "product of a much larger initial cut. Let me know if you'd like to see these references and discuss further Chris Thomas Associate Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 530.538.6706 (direct) 530.538.7601 (office) 530.538.2140 (fax) 2/13/2008 0 0 2.3.9 ID u• Page 1 of 1 . • Thomas, Chris From: Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:56 PM j To: Thomas, Chris I Subject: NEW ERA i CHRIS:- 1. HRIS:1. 1 WILL BRING COPY STATE WATER ALLOTMENT REPORT IN WEDNESDAY. GOOD INFORMATION i IN IT AND'MAPS. OWNER WAS "GAUMER" NEW ERA MINE. I ' 2.. 1 DIDN'T THINK WHEN I LEFT. THE:WEB SITES FOR THE LEE OGLE DOCUMENTS I. i GAVE YOU APPEAR ON THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE. JUST TYPE THEM IN AND PUNCH "GO." 3.. DID YOU SAY THAT STATE BROUGHT THEIR OWN ATTORNEY WITH THEM FOR. LAST WEDNESDAY'S -MEETING WITH NEW ERA? i THANKS FOR ALL YOUR TIME TODAY. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. . II • Start the year off right..Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new. year. Page 1 of..2 • Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Sent: ` Friday; February 01, 2008 2:17 PM To: Snellings, Tim Cc: Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Thomas, Chris subject: NEW ERA MINE ON DRY CREEK. February 1, 2008 From: CONCERNED RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS Dry Creek and vicinity - Butte County, California Subject: The New Era Mine on. Dry Creek Road INFORMATION FOR' RELEASE TO PUBLIC MEDIA For many years, there has been no visible operation of any mine at the northerly end of DryCreek Road in Butte County. Imagine the dismay of many residents who live in the vicinity, when both their property and personal environment *were recently encroached upon by the personnel and equipment of a mine operation there, currently named "New Era Mine The encroachment, of property is witnessed by the fact that no permission ,was requested by the mine. operators to use the local private road for commercial purposes and large pieces of equipment are being moved that exceed 'the capacity and width of the road. The personal environment encroachment consists of noise, dust, and travel delays to/from residences due to equipment and mine employee traffic. Concerned residents have been informed that the mine owner and operator have recently been cited by the State Water Quality Board for stream damage and pollution of Dry Creek and that remedial action is being taken by the mine operation. The neighbors that enjoy living near the creek trust and await the Water Board; the Department of Fish and Game, and the County's certification that such violations have been corrected, and that ongoing regulatory monitoring will maintain the compliance. Concerned residents have information from public records and other sources relating to the,validity of the Butte County land use permit issued in 1982, under which the mine owner is attempting to operate currently. This evidentiary information includes: 1. The lack of required continuous operation since the permit was issued. 2. The current physical scope of operation versus the originally approved plan. 0102394 3. The lack of a land restoration plan or a bond to finance site reclamation. 4. The lack of compliance inspections by regulatory agencies over the years. • This is only a layman's observation, but the obvious conclusion is that the old 1982 issued permit is not valid for operation of the New Era Mine. - The concerned residents have other objections that need to be heard by civil officials in open public Page 2. of 2 meetings, before the New Era Mine is allowed to resume operations. As a minimum it must be under a new land use permit and in compliance with all current federal, state and county regulations. Mandatory to this is the required land restoration plan and finance bond for such reclamation. The resident owners of the private Dry Creek Road believe the local landowners have the right to negotiate a private road usage agreement with the owners and operators of the mine, and that the mine owner should issue a Good Neighbor policy that addresses suppression of noise, i dust, and light pollution of the beautiful Dry Creek Canyon and Messilla Valley. Concerned Residents and Landowners of the Dry Creek area r agc i va L. • McMillan, Kira From: Sent: Friday, February01, 200810:53 AM To: Snellings, Tim Subject: FW: New Era Mine on Dry Creek • • From: Sent: .r�'.', ry 01, 2008 10:49 AM To: istlethwaite@buttecounty.net; 'pcalarco@buttecounty.net; 'chris thomas'; 'bconnelly buttecounty.net'; 'jdolan@buttecounty.net; 'mklrk@buttecounty.neV; 'cjosiassen@buttecounty.net'; 'Wamaguchi@buttecoun_ .net'; 'tsnellings@buutecounty.net' Subject: RE: New Era Mine on Dry Creek We agree that the information provided b elow raises too many questions about the legality of the New Era Mine's current operation: We do insist on further evaluation and a decision by the County that will protect the rights of Butte County citizens and the environment of a beautiful area in our County. E30�39-6 From• Sent: Friday; February 01; 2008 10:22 AM To: cthisdethwaite@buttecounty.net; pcalarco@buttecounty.net; chris thomas; bconnelly@buttecounty.net; jdolan@buttecounty.net; mkirk@buttecounty.net; cjosiassen@buttecounty.net; kyamaguchi@buttecounty.net; 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: 1. The USE Permit-UP81-135 issued for the "mining operation limited to a maximum 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 Ietter.Even if this is legal(?) why was there no Application for Vadance(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 placer mine, in Butte County .... THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WAS 2/13/2008 rage .L.ui L DISSOLVED IN 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 nuisance. PLANNING COMMISSION . WILL SET A DATE FOR HEARING PRIOR TO 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 of 15 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 13-105? Are they involved? j 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 3.Ch6pter 13-112 a) Were there ever any annual inspections. j b)did the owner submit the required annual reports? I* 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. V1312008 002.397 McMillan, Kim From: Calarco, Pete Sent:- Friday, January 11, 2008 5:02 PM To: Snellings, Tim Subject: RE: meeting with New Era You may have a point here. It could be worth out time to double up so they don't shop for answers. From: Snellings, Tim Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 4:47. PM To: Calarco, Pete Subject: RE: meeting with New -Era Let's discuss the best strategy on Monday. I think it possible for me to be there and for them to NOT be able to divide and conquer, but I'm open to discussing it with you... I'm trying to avoid the 'meeting after the meeting'—when they don't like the answer and then want to meet with me ... thanks, Tim From: Calarco, Pete Sent: Fri 1/11/2008 4:28 PM To: Snellings, -Tim Subject: meeting with New Era Tim, I spoke again with Lee Ogle of New Era Mine. 'I have scheduled a meeting for Wed. afternoon to discuss their information that would counter the violation letter that we Issued. He asked if you were going to be there.. I did not intend on calendaring you for that in the "divide and conquer" spirit. Let me know if you want to be there. He is sensing that I am not very cooperative. I keep telling him that we are willing to reviewany materials that he as but I also tell him that with my experience, I do not think it is likely that that can produce the required evidence. —pete Pete Calarco Assistant Director Butte County Development Services 7 County Center Dr Oroville CA 95965 (530) 538-2167 I 002398 s -5- � — — • McMillan, Kira From: Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:30 PM To: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Fwd: new era mine Attachments: new era mine DEAR TIM, CHUCK, PETE AND CHRIS: I HAVE ATTACHED A COPY OF -MAIL TO VALLEY RESIDENTS AND PLANNING REGARDING WHAT IS GOING 0 UT HERE. 1. i WOULD ASK OPERATORS TO PLEASE PUT DOWN THE CORRECT TYPE OF ROCK FROM ROBINSON QUARRY IN OROVILLE. THEIR CONTRACTOR IS GOING OVER THE ROCK I PUT DOWN AT MY OWN EXPENSE FROM THAT QUARRY. 2. THEIR CONTRACTOR IS PUTTING DOWN 17 TRUCKLOADS OF BASALT FROM TABLE MT. QUARRY ON TABLE MT. ROAD, OROVILLE. HE IS ALSO PUTTING UP 4 4'X4' DUST SIGNS AT THE ENTRANCE TO DRY CREEK ROAD (THE FRONT OF MY HOME) AND 1 4'X'6' VENDOR SIGN EITHER AT THE ENTRANCE TO DRY CREEK ROAD OR AT THE MINE ENTRANCE. THE MINE ENTRANCE WOULD BE PREFERABLE. 3. THE OPERATORS ARE GOING AHEAD AS THOUGH THEY ARE ASSURED OF VALIDITY OF THEIR OLD PERMIT. THE OLD PERMIT IS INVALID AS MINE WAS INOPERATIVE. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD ADOPTED THE NEW ERA RESCINDMENT IN SEPTEMBER 25, 1992. THIS IS REGIONAL WATER BOARD'S FORMAL LETTER INFORMING LOGAN HIS REQUEST TO RESCIND HAD BEEN ADOPTED. THE MINE WAS INACTIVE. PART G: "ORDER NO 91-003, ADOPTED 25 JANUARY 1991, PRESCRIBES REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW ERA MINE, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OPERATING A PLACER MINE, IN BUTTE COUNTY. THE MINE EXTRACTS PLACER DEPOSITS FROM A STREAM BED, THEN HYDRAULICALLY PROCESSES THE ORE FOR GOLD RECOVERY. THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WAS DISSOLVED IN 1990: AND NO MINING HAS TAKEN PLACE SINCE THEN. THERE ARE NO CURRENT PLANS TO RESUME MINING. " IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS ARE RESCINDED. I, WILLIAM H. CROOKS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE FORGOING IS A FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ORDER ADOPTED BY THE CALIFORNNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, CENTRAL VALLEY REGION, ON 25 SEPTEMBER 1992. 4;f- -THE'RESIDENT WHO HAD EMPLOYED MR. LO.GAN'S TWO DAUGHTERS..AND WAS TOLD THE MINE WAS NOT OPEN BY THOSE MEMBERS OF LOGAN'S FAMILIES. HE IS GOING TO DO AN AFFADAVIT FOR"THE-COUNTY AND GET IT TO CHRIS. 5. MOST OF T HE RESIDENTS OF THE VALLEY BELIEVE A NEW PERMIT IS REQUIRED. A NEW PERMIT WILL ALLOW THE COUNTY THE CONTROL AND OVERSIGHT THAT IS NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT. 6. REGARDING RECLAMATION, MR. LOGAN OWNS NOTHING BUT THAT PROPERTY. HE IS.NOT GOING TO LEAVE IT OR ABANDON IT. IN THE TWENTY-FOUR YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENT HERE, MR. LOGAN AND HIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN AS PERENNIAL AS THE SUN. 002399 2/13/2008 Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Sent: • ri ay, a ruary" , 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 permitting process. Only a 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 Game, and other agencies be directly and frequently involved 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 aquifer 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 before operations begin and pump the water onto the surface (Solnit, Storming the Gates of Paradise, University of California.Press 2005). will this method be used at the mine in question? If Dry Creek is muddied and the stream bed • degraded, 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. apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in Similarly, "The EIR is to demonstrate to an 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 the potential 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, because so little is known, little, it seems, is 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 our 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 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 mining operation will undoubtedly lead to graver issues in the i 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 to our satisfaction. Thank you for your attention to these matters. signed, i• 2 Pete Calarco sent an e-mail on January 17, 2008 to Tim Snellings, Charles Thistlewaite, and Chris Thomas of DDS and Doug Craig of OMR following up on matters addressed in the closed meeting of those individuals and OMR legal counsel. In that e-mail, Mr. Calarco acknowledged that the current mining activity may not be outside of the boundary of the 1982 permit and reclamation plan and that he needed to review the files further. This acknowledgement is extremely significant since DDS senior staff (namely, DDS Director Snellings and Assistant Director Calarco) had not sufficiently reviewed the documentation on file for the New Era Mine prior to: (i) issuing the notice: of violation, which stated, among other things, that the scope of the permit had been exceeded and no permit or reclamation plan was on file --both statements that are patently false; (ii) informing numerous neighbors of the New Era Mine in multiple e-mail communications of these unsubstantiated conclusions prior to issuance of the notice of violation; (iii) convening a closed meeting with select neighbors reiterating these unsubstantiated conclusions; and (iv) convening a meeting of the above-mentioned DDS and OMR staff and the operators to convey these unsubstantiated conclusions to the operators. DDS has repeatedly acted in bad faith in informing the operators of their willingness to work to a reasonable resolution of any. deficiencies while instead working the entire time to rally the support of neighbors and state agencies to deprive the operators of their rights . under the permit. Moreover, DDS has consistently and improperly used their history of failures to inspect and acknowledge the mining operations as evidence that they did not exist. The fact that Chris Thomas made independent and premature conclusions early in his review of the mine file and DDS senior staff blindly endorsed his premature conclusions does not make those conclusions fact. It is plain to see from the months -long correspondence from Chris Thomas to neighbors, state agencies, and his superiors that he had a vendetta -type mindset determined to prove his initial conclusions correct. Moreover, it is obvious that. DDS senior staff have consistently chosen to rally behind Chris Thomas's determination despite simple and reasonable refutation of his incorrect conclusions. This behavior demonstrates failures at every level of DDS staff in the performance of their duties, including, but not limited to, repeated failures of DDS senior staff to supervise DDS junior staff, repeated failures of DDS senior staff to participate in the preparation and execution of official DDS actions, and repeated actions by DDS junior staff that are reckless, unprofessional, and counter to the charge of DDS as a lead agency to promote reasonable mining activities. Asa result, it is more likely than not that a court of competent jurisdiction would rule that any determination made by DDS or presented by DDS to the Butte County Planning Commission are arbitrary and capricious and void. In addition, the historical practices of DDS, the Public Works Department, and the Butte'County Planning Commission in its conduct of lead agency activities over the past 25 years are assured to draw the ire of OMR once these practices come to light. NEW ERA MINE: PAST, PRESENT AND. FUTURE DRAFT January 28,2008 1. Introductions II. County Goals Regarding the New Era Mine a. Conform with County Code and State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA): valid permit, reclamation plan and.financial assurance that reclamation will occur b. Insure no impacts to DryCreek, local water sources, local flora and fauna, Dry Creek Road, local residents (e.g., noise, road safety, dust, etc.) III. Recent Events and Current Compliance Process a. Late winter, 2007_ Ron Logan came in to ask about his permit status. Was told permit had lapsed, he disagreed, and staff instructed him to submit evidence that his mine had been operating over the past 25 years. No such evidence was submitted. b. In late May 2007 a Dry Creek Road resident came in to ask about activity on the Logan property. c. Staff asked Department of Fish and Game warden Josh Brennan to visit the site.- Warden Brennan reported back on June 5, 2007 that there was a small operation, well outside the creek, and one of the better run he had seen. operations d. Over the summer of 2007 I'received a couple more calls about activity on the Logan property. On October 24 Code Enforcement visited the site and reported back an extensive operation. e., i first spoke with Lee Ogle on October 26 and informed him that it appeared that UP 8 1-13 5 had lapsed and that they had to make a new - mining permit application. f. Staffmet with Lee Ogle and Frank Noland on October 30, 2007, and instructed the operators to submit any evidence of on-going operations at g.. the New Era. On November 20 Mr. Ogle. and Noland submitted a number -of affidavits and other materials they believed demonstrated continuous operation. . h. Staff did not agree. On December 5 staff inspected the site along with Phil Woodward of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and found approximately 12 acres of disturbed area with about 100,000 cubic yards of material redistributed i. on the site. , On December 17, 2007 the Regional Water Quality control Board issued a cleanup and abatement order containing several requirements that would insure stabilization of the site. j. On December 20 a Notice of Violation under Butte County Code 13- 116(b)(1) was sent out to Ron Logan and the operators. 002403 • k.- In response to the Notice of Violation, on January 16 the operators met with staff and submitted additional material that they asserted showed continuous operation. 1. On January 18, in order to further research the materials submitted and the .history and status of UP81-135, staff granted the operators an extension until February 4. Staff is currently working on that determination. m. On January 24, 2008 the Regional Water Quality Control Board reported that the operators were complying- with the cleanup and abatement order and that a substantial amount of stabilization work had been done. IV. UP 81-135 Application a.. Application first made in April of 1981 b. Denied by the Planning Commission in September of 1981 c. Appealed to the Board of Supervisors On October 27, 1981 d. Board of Supervisors denied without prejudice i. Inadequate environmental information ii. Applicant allowed to reapply without paying a new fee e. Second application received October 28, 1981 i. On-going debate about whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required (rather than Initial Study), particularly in regards to potential impacts to downstream seeps used by area residents as sources of water. • ii. On March 10, 1982, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 that an EIR would not be required of the applicant. f. After a number of continuances, UP 81-135 was approved by the Planning Commission on May 20, 1982. Among 24 conditions of approval: i. $3,000 financial assurance for reclamation ii. Public Works was to inspect site three times per year V. Post Approval Status a. No County records indicating operation after 1982: Two items suggest mine was operating at some level: i. Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Permit received in,1988 for 1988-1989 ii. Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board rescinded in 1991 b. Annual mine inspections required by the Office of Mine Reclamation since 1991— the New Era Mine has never filed these or annual production reports. • • C } i Page 1 of 1 Thistlethwaite, Charles i - From: Calarco, Pete Sent: Thursday, January. 17, 2008 10:33 AM To: Snellings, Tim; Thistlethwaite, Charles; dcraig@consrv.ca.gov; Thomas, Chris Subject: clarification/correction of my statements } ! Thank you for meeting yesterday on the New Era Mine. I need to correct some statements I made during'our brainstorming, session after the meeting. Early in our brainstorming session,, I mentioned that the current mining activity is outside of the boundary of the 1982 rec plan/permit. This may not be the case. Chris Thomas briefed me further on the file materials and it may be that the Planning Commission approval in 1982 included- mining activities for the entire parcel. At this point, I suggest that we reserve confirmation of this aspect until we research the file materials further — contrary to what I mentioned earlier In the meeting. Thank you. -pete Pete Calarco Assistant Director Butte County Development Services 7 County Center Dr Oroville CA 95965 (530) 538-2167 I - i i 002405 Page 1 of. l I • Thistlethwaite, Charles From: Calarco, Pete I Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:00 AM To: McMillan, Kim I " Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Thomas, Chris; Snellings, Tim Subject: RE: New Era No, we will just have to cram into our conf. room. Hopefully IDR will be`done by 3. —pete From: McMillan, Kim Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:19 AM To: Calarco, Pete Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Thomas, Chris; Snellings, Tim Subject: RE: New Era 3a is already booked and pw is only available from 3:00 - 3:30 or 4:00 - 5:00. Would you like me to see if I can find a room over at 78 Table Mountain or 202 Mira Loma? The CAO conference room is available and I've had Cheryl tentatively schedule that forme. Thanks, I� • Kim From: Calarco, Pete . Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:54 AM To: McMillan, Kim Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Thomas, Chris; Snellings, Tim Subject: FW: New Era Kim, the meeting at 3 p.m. has expanded. Can you check to see if 3-A or PW Conf. room is available? Thanks. - -pete From: Thomas, Chris Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:19 AM To: Thistlethwalte, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: New Era Morning — Just got off the phone with Phil Woodward of the Board —.Lee Ogle asked him to attend this afternoon and he said he will come. Phil,says they have done a good job complying with the Abatement Order but are -not done yet. On a related note, Condition 3 of UP 81-135 required Mr. Logan to submit" a current report of wastewater discharge" to the RWQCB and Phil did some digging and found that this was done in 1982, and a revision to the WDR was made in 1991. In 1992 Mr. Logan apparently asked the Board to rescind the WDR and that is where the Board's records of the New Era stop. • Looks like we now have 11 people attending this meeting- is the conference room big enough? Chas 002406 110 Page 1 of 1 Thistlethwaite, Charles From:. Thistlethwaite, Charles Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:48 PM To: Snellings, Tim Cc: Calarco, Pete Subject: Inspection of New Era Mine Attachments: NewEra_120507_014.JPG; NewEra 120507 012.JPG - Tim: Today, I led an inspection on the New Era Mine (APN 041-080-027) located at 4095 Dry Creek Road. As you know, this property received approval of a Use Permit and Surface Mining Reclamation Plan, in 1983, but has never been inspected by the County for compliance with their permit or as required by the State under SMARA. I was accompanied by"staff from our SMARA consultants, Public'Works; Code Enforcement, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Conditions on the site, especially in the aftermath of the recent rains, caused our SMARA consultants and.RWQCB personnel great concern. Sid ecasting of materials adjacent to Dry Creek and in tributary canyons have created a potential problem with erosion and sedimentation Into -the creek. _ Numerous springs flowing through recently mined areas.and inadequate and poorly constructed stormwater detention ponds appeared to be close to causing large amounts of mining spoils to flow into the creet as well. It was also obvious that the mining operation and (lack of) reclamation were also inconsistent with the Use Permit and Reclamation Plan. The Use Permit Itself may not be valid as the ordinance in place at the time provided the permit would expite after 12 months of inactivity and substantial mining activities only began this past spring. . We are still working on putting together the:final results of the Inspection, but it appears likely the County (the RWQCB .and Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation as well) will be taking action to address what we found. We spoke with the property owner (Jerry Badley) and operator (Frank Noland) who were willing to address some of the immediate concerns, but were not cooperative about addressing the permit and reclamation issues. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards,. _ Chuck Charles S: Thistlethwalte, AICP 0 Manager, Planning Division Butte Couhfy Department of Development Services E-mail. CThistlethwalte(cDbuttecounty.net Phone: (530) 538-6572 FAX: (530) 538-2140