Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSURFACE MINIG INSPECTION REPORTState of California DF TMENT OF CONSERVATION JWOF MINE RECLAMATION 1 "KC -1 Page 1 of 3 (Rev. 09/05) SURFACE MINING INSPECTION REPORT Instructions for completing this form are on the reverse side. Attach notice(s) of violation(s) and order(s) to comply for all observed non-compliance. I. Mine Name as reported by Operator on Mining Operation Annual ReportInspection Date: CA MINE ID#: NEW ERA MINE 12-5-07 91-04-0031 II. SMARA Lead Agency Name (City or County only ) Butte County ., . InspectorTelephone No IgnacioGonzalez and Nate Anderson (707) 332-6263 — Gonzalez Mailing Address (530) 894-3469 — Anderson Title Organization Contract Planners Oroville California Planning Division Mailing Address 7 County Center Drive City State ZIP Code Orovilie California 95965 E-mail Address (Optional) ngonzaleziiomcworld.cnm and nanderson0r)mcwgdd.com North rnntinent I and R TimhPr_ inr_ intact Person Telephone Ronald Logan No Yes 530 533-4645 Mailing Address 4095 Dry Creek Road City State ZIP Code Oroville California 95965 E-mail Address (Optional) IV. Does the operation have: P NR No Yes A permit to mine? ❑ ❑ X Permit # U-81-135 (permit lapsed for non-use) An approved Reclamation Plan? ❑ ❑ X RP # Has the operator filed a Mining Operation Annual Report (forth MRRC-2)? Check one: X Yes (see notes on pg.3) ❑ No ❑ Unknown Is this operation on Federal Land? Check one: If "Yes", provide one or bob) of the Federal Mine Land Identification Numbers below: C] Yes X No California Mining Claim Number (CAMC#): N/A U orest Service Identification Number (USFS ID#): N/A UBUTION: Original to Operator. Copies to: State (by Lead Agency), Lead Agency, State (by Operator), and BLM, or USFS (if required). 314 State of California ,.,PNKTMENT OF CONSERVATION iOF MINE RECLAMATION MRRC-1 Page 2 v. 09/05) SURFACE MINING INSPECTION REPORT V. Does the Operator currently have a Lead.Agency approved Financial Assurance? Check one: ❑ Yes X No If "Yes", complete section below. If "No", refer to instructions on the reverse of this page and complete Section VI.. Inspection Date: December 5, 2007 CA MINE ID#: , 91-040031 Type ofFinancial AssuranceMMechanism(s)Financial Assurance Mechanism Number(s) Current Amount on File Date of Expiration ❑ Surety Bond $ ❑ Certificate of Deposit $ ❑ Letter of Credit $ ❑ Trust Fund $ ❑ Pledge of Revenue $ ❑ Budget Set Aside $ ❑ $ The Financial Assurance Amount must be adjusted annually. Attach is a copy of the Financial Assurance Amount Cost Estimate submitted on 12/5/07 with this report. Date of Financial Assurance Amount Calculation: see notes below s the current mechanism(s) on file cover the new annual calculation? ❑ Yes ® Norequired: f "No", date operator was notified that,a new mechanism is See notes below comment.. There are currently no approved financial assurances on file for the "New Era Mine". In the 1981 Use Permit approved for the proposed mine operation it was conditioned that a $3,000redamation performance bond.be filed .with the County of Butte. It should.be noted that per County.records, there appears to be no financial assurance on file for the mine in question. It has been the County's Determination that since the permit had lapsed fornon-use the mine did not exist until just recently when North Continent Land and Timber commenced operations on the site in 2007. Staff believes that the original $3,000 amount today would not be sufficient to cover the cost of the land disturbances thus far, including the erosion into the adjacent meek and stabilizing the slopes above and below the ponds. The operator has submitted a financial assurance cost estimate worksheet, dated November 30, 2007, prepared by KAS Gales Company, Consulting Engineering, 18772 Harmon Road, Fayetteville, AR. 72704 (copy attached for OMR's review). It should be noted that the cost estimates were provided to staff in the field on December 5, 2007. Upon review of the submitted cost estimates, staff find that the values provided are insufficient (i.e. page 1, Cost estimates cite a "D-8 Dozer" @ $45.00/hr. However, according to the Caltrans Labor Surcharge & Equipment Rental Rates Handbook (April 2007), there are several types of D-8, with rates ranging from $125.00 to $158.00 per hour). Another example is noted on page 3 of the cost estimate worksheet, the preparer of the cost estimates did not indicate the type and number of axles. Typically on -highway trucks will run $39.94 to $66.34 per hour. What is noted in this report are examples of the cost estimates illustrating a lower value than what is realistic. The total estimated cost for reclamation is $24,081. This is believed to be too low considering the amount of disturbed land area. Staff will request of the operator that a revised estimate be submitted for review. Upon receipt of any revised cost estimates, staff will forward to OMR under separate cover letter for OMR's review and concurrence. However, staff will still request of OMR, a review of the attached cost estimates for consistency. ,,"DI iBUTION: Original to Operator. Copies to: State (by Lead Agency), Lead Agency, State (by Operator), and BLM or USES (if required). 315 State of California �RTMENT OF CONSERVATION E OF MINE RECLAMATION 1 Page 3 of 3 (Rev. 09/05) SURFACE MINING INSPECTION REPORT VII. Is the operation in compliance with provisions of the approvedOK Reclamation Plan with respect to: VN NI NA CA MINE ID # 91-04-0031 Wildlife Habitat❑ ® ❑ ❑ Inspection Date: 12=5-07 Revegetation ❑ ® 0 ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ ❑ 11 ® Weather Code(s); CR/CL Stream Protection ❑ ® El ❑ Duration of Inspection: 3 Hours Tailings and Mine Waste Management ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Closure of Surface Openings ❑ ❑ ® Approximate Disturbed Acreage: 18 -acres Building, Structure, and Equipment Removal ❑ ® ❑ ❑ soil Salvage, Maintenance, and Redistribution ❑ ® ❑ Status of Operation Code(s): A Backfilling, Regrading, Slope Stability, and Recontouring ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Drainage, Diversion Structures, Waterways, and Erosion ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Status of Reclamation Code(s): RN Other (list or explain below) ❑ ® El ❑ VIII. Comments/Description of Violations) and Corrective Measure(s) Required [NOTE: please Indicate if.you have attached notice(s) of violation(s) and correction order(s), in lieu of description on this form) - The subject property is located north of Oroville, specifically situated in West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SE Y4 of Section 1, T 21 N; R 3 E; MDB&M, and is comprised of approximately 18 acres. The site is accessed via Dry Creek Road. As observed, the operation is located on both sides of Dry Creek, a year round stream. The inspection conducted was in response to a complaint received by the County, as the mine operator was not reporting on an annual basis to both the County and the State that the mine was in existence. It was observed that the gold mining operation is an open pit operation that is to be staged over a number of years, this according to the operator. From staffs observations, the operation consists of mining and processing of gold bearing ore materials by washing and screening the material, thus resulting in gold bearing sands and fines that are processed utilizing a Diester Table for final separation of the gold from the black sand. Water and fines gravity flow to a series of settlement ponds. Five currently exist with a sixth one to be constructed per the operator. It should be noted that all of these ponds will require engineering, and as such this has not occurred or at minimum evidence submitted to the County of Butte stating such. Representatives from the Planning Division, Department of Public Works, Code Enforcement, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board were present for the inspection on December 5, 2007. The following violations are notes as follows: 1. The Use Permit (UP -81-135), which was to establish the use was not maintained as required pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-48.2, as there is no evidence provided that the use did not cease during the years prior to the current operation, thus making this operation unpermitted; • No Surface Mining Operation Annual Reports (MRRC-2), pursuant to the Public Resources Code PRC 2207 have been filed with the County of Butte since 1993, and the Department of Conservation. A current MRRC-2 form for 2007 year will need to be filed ASAP. Violation Noted. 3. There is currently no DFG Streambed alteration agreement on file for the subject property. The previously approved streambed alteration agreement is dated May 1, 1988, which terminated on May 1, 1989. There is no evidence that a current DFG Agreement has been secured for the site, Including isturbances that have been made to Dry Creek. Violation Noted. 4. Pursuant to the conditions of approval of UP -81-135, there was to be a current report of wastewater to be submitted to the RWQCB. The previous condition also required compliance with wastewater discharge requirements. This has not occurred. County staff will work with RWQCB staff in addressing this violation. However, the RWQCB may also Initiate enforcement action as well. S. As noted above, there are settling ponds located on the site that have not been engineered per County records. All ponds were to be located outside of the 100 -year flood plain and have enough capacity to contain all process water without discharge to surface drainage. Complete engineered plans for each of the ponds will need to be submitted to the County for review and approval. Violation Noted. 6. There was previously a requirement for a reclamation performance bond In the amount of $3,000 to be submitted to the County. There is no evidence that such has occurred. However, staff believes that the $3,000 amount previously required would not be sufficient to cover the cost of reclamation. See comments`under Section VI (Financial Assurances) on page two of this report. 7. There was previously a condition of approval that as much vegetation as possible was to be preserved so as to promote ground stability and reduce erosion. As evidenced by the attached pictures, a significant amount of vegetation has been removed, with the Spoil Area only being located approximately 200 feet from. the Southern Property line. It was noted on the day of the inspection that the areas above the settling pond that soils were unstable and that the operator. had spread a thin layer of hay on the bench above the ponds. However, it did not appear to be stable and was very saturated by recent rains preceding the inspection. Violatlon Noted. ,This will also be an issue with the RWQCB. 8. The previous permit required that the following erosion control measures be established: (1) Stabilization of graded areas; (2) Stabilization of the stream bank in the area of the mining operation; (3) Proper development of drainage for the open pit mine area; and (5). install a culvert for any stream crossing across Dry Creek. There was no evidence that this has been done. Staff is still awaiting the RWQCB's findings of the December 5, 2007 inspection. Violation Noted. 9. Condition Number 14 of the permit previously required that ponds be utilized to control the discharge of sediments to Dry Creek. The observations made at the site, appear. that the actual mining and construction of the ponds has resulting in loose materials, tree limbs, sluff and other debris to be pushed over the banks of Dry Creek, which will result in potential water quality Issues. Additionally, as previously noted, the ponds that have been established appear.not to have been properly engineered. Staff observed instability of the overall pond area. Staff will require that the ponds be engineered by a California licensed Civil Engineer for adequate capacity utilizing the 207year/1 hour event factor. The engineer shall also evaluate the stability of the overall area and provide for any corrective measures. The operator shall provide plans to the Planning Division, The Public Works Department and the Building Official demonstrating compliance with the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code. Plans are to be submitted within 30'days. •Regardless of the status of U-81-135. Condition Number 24 of the permit stated that the applicant must also comply with all other applicable state, and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. The New Era Mine has not complied with the following: 1) As noted above under Item# 2, the submission of the MRRC-2 (Surface Mining Operation Annual Reports to the Department of Conservation and the County of Butte, as required by PRC § 2207 since 1993 to 2007 has not occurred. 11. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section § 2773. (a) (4), the operator has not provided the required financial assurance for the operation so as to ensure reclamation of the site. 12. The operator of the New Era Mine has not filed the required annual financial assurance cost estimates with the County of Butte and the Department of Conservation since 1993, pursuant to PRC § 2770 and PRC § 2773.1. 13. Additionally, since the County of Butte has determined that the Use Permit issued in 1981 has become invalid for non-use, the current operation is in violation of PRC § 2770. (a) which states that no person shall conduct surface mining operations unless a permit is obtained from, a reclamation plan has been submitted to and approved by, and financial assurances for reclamation have been approved by, the lead agency for the operation. . 317 leective Measures 1. The operator shall adhere to all provisions of the 30 -day Notice of Violation letter, dated December 20, 2007 from Butte County to Mr. Ronal Logan. 2. The operator shall file with the Office of Mine Reclamation and with the County of Butte Department of Development Services, a current MRRC-2 Annual Surface Mining Operations. Report demonstrating all current activities at the site. 3. The operator shall secure a 1600 Permit from the Department of Fish and Game with 30 days, and shall submit written verification to the Butte County Department of Development Services, that such permit has been seared. 4. The operator shall secure all required permits and clearances from the RWQCB within the prescribed timelines established by the RWQCB. The operator shall provide copies of permits issued by the RWQCB to the Butte County Department of Development Services. S. The operator shall submit within 30 days to the County of Butte Department of Development Services complete engineered plans for each of the settlement ponds for review and approval. Applicable permits (Building/Grading) shall be secured as well. See note above under item number 9, under violations noted. 6. Upon receipt of comments from the Office of Mine Reclamation regarding the cost estimates, the operator shall caused to be amended the cost estimates reflecting any comments made by OMR and shall be submitted to the County of Butte Department of Development Services within 30 -days of the County's notification to the operator. Upon approval by both.the County and the Office of Mine Reclamation, the operator shall provide the County with a Financial Assurance mechanism reflecting the cost of reclamation within 30 days of receiving notification from the County. 7. The operator shall address item 8 above under violations noted, and shall be adhered to within 30 -days. IX. Number of Violations: 11 Inspector's Signature: / d Date Signed: December 27 2007 DISTRIBUTION: Original to Operator. Copies to: State (by Lead Agency), Lead Agency, State (by Operator), and BLM or USFS (if required). 318 New Era Mine/ CA MINE ID#: 91-04-0031 Photographs 12-5-07 Iddikk Photo Number 1 Photo Number 2 Photo Number 1 illustrates a 55 -gallon drum that contains the black sands and fines that are processed in the facility in photo . Number 2. The operation consists of mining and processing of gold bearing ore materials by washing and screening the material, thus resulting in gold bearing sands and fines that are processed utilizing a Diester Table for final separation of the gold from the black sand. Photo Number 3 Photo Number 4 Photo Number 3 was taken immediately adjacent to the office trailer looking toward the settling ponds. The photo illustrates the installation of straw waddles, which when observed with RWQCB staff, were found to be inappropriately installed. The straw waddles were loose and not properly staked down. The photo also illustrates a water hose that is used to pump water from the settling ponds. Photo Number 4 illustrates a view of the on-site settling ponds that are located adjacent to Dry +a. K3 M New Era Mine/ CA MINE ID#: 91-04-0031 Photographs 12-5-07 �3r -•: �, I 4 5 `zti�t..ro.�..+�u..: Photo Number 5 Photo Number 6 The two photos (5 and 6) provide a view of the settling ponds from above on an' excavated bench. -Photo 5, especially illustrates how close the ponds are located to the edge of the bank of Dry Creek Photo 5 also illustrates the straw that was M ly spread over the disturbed areas. However, the entire area ,was not covered and when staff walked the site, it.was `uddy_and unstable. Photo Number 7 Photo Number 8 Photos 7 and 8 are of the area above the settling ponds. This area currently is the upper most cut on the slope. The photos indicate that the area has been recently graded and in efforts to stabilize the operator has placed straw mulch on the slopes. 'Tkea shown in Photo number 7 also serves as an access to the far side of the property. However, as illustrated in Photo ! r 7, the areas'above the roadway/bench have not been stabilized nor have erosion control measures been installed. his area is subject to instability and further erosion, which could impact Dry Creek below. 320- ..(' ti �. '�., �tyc � ltd. I. •. fr �r� _ �� _ - � z ,. C� `�`� e�••aYi •+.E>Kl:.:,� lrT, ! a?f, � af]. • _ x. f ,'a7 N$.. ...,c-.•.-: ..r l7 al 4r—tir '.LY`^` h Y .t&.. } h J 1 �� r. '�'q.'7•'11`, rL-•--sR' =� y.i-if r-Y� ..-S m t M1 3 _ j t • '�. S tY ir.. 1 '.a3 '. �'1".,.�a f �,r �% -",.ry � r -r— t� tom.'""'" t �1. ya�,�-..,, y�• r �k � .'. '"� . -.,� .- r _� . y •-, �'� �.?I�� rj' t Z"" -K- _ . ♦ S ,r-`_ �..,.... - _. r r - f _t3` it S t'S S Y� i x-_ +-t y l� w � # \• cr- �` t� :.k Y .��yi "C �t �.:5 �k�+�X3� ����y$"�'`�'�*,��r���;���; �� !. � .. -.-� .,. .a.�'if %?._.�:`_�?�'#: i _ .*.`4�J.as. �'s'ex,>�a .�� 55.t4''`:,i!C`n•'•Y`L+�;.' H-*1.�'+c���ki�"i'rR, .r,:t'�'f`�, rh.�i �q S �f L IBM. Y I