Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Erica Whittlesey - New Era Mine Dry Creek 4 June 2008 OROVILLE, CALIILCRj%t!A Regarding New Era Mine in Dry Creek Canyon and Planning Commission Resolution 08-24 Honored Supervisors Connelly,Dolan,Josiassen,Kirk,and Yamaguchi: Dry Creek Canyon has been my home for 23 years. I believe that the nature of our environmental concerns regarding the New Era Mine are sufficiently supported by scientific evidence and that an Environmental Impact Report must be required.Until one is completed,I request that operations at the mine be curtailed,or at the very least,limited and closely monitored by citizens and all applicable government agencies. The scope of this operation has increased vastly and exponentially.Until last year,virtually no traffic on Dry Creek Road was related to the New Era Mine.Now,approximately 90%of traffic is in service of the mine.The vast increase in scope is also evident in the appearance of the site. Aerial photographs from 2006 show no disturbance on the site,attesting to Mr. Logan's limited and intermittent activity.Today,12 acres of bare earth are revealed,in addition to various cleared roads around the site and on adjacent properties. The operation is clearly limited to 20 cubic yards of native material per day.The Butte County Planning Department Staff Report for the March 13'h Planning Commission Hearing states that the record is"consistently unambiguous"on this point.The Planning Commissioners agreed with this determination.However,the April 10,2008 Resolution and Order to Comply permits the New Era Wine to operate beyond this limit,following operation plans submitted by the operators and UNAPPROVED by any governing body and not subject to review by the public.This action is a violation of California Code of Regulations Title 14,Chapter 8,Article 1,Section 3502(d) which states that"An amended reclamation plan shall be approved by the lead agency PRIOR to the commencement of activities determined to be a substantial deviation from the approved plan." The New Era Mine must be held to the constraints imposed by Mining Permit 81-135 of 1982 until a new or revised permit and reclamation plan are acquired by the operators. Mr.Will,in North Continent's appeal of Resolution 08-24,argues that 20 cubic yards refers to processed material.He estimates that 465 years would be required to mine the entire site at 20 cubic yards of native material per day.However,this estimate is perfectly consistent with Mr. Logan's initial request for a rate of 80 cubic yards of native material per day and his estimate that the operation will take up to 100 years to complete.The blatant inconsistency between Mr. Logan's 50-100 year estimate and North Continent's 5 year estimate further supports the fact that 20 cubic yards refers to native material. Specific Comments Regarding Planning Commission Resolution 08-24: Finding(C):The initial Order to Comply,issued in February,stipulates that the mine may operate only within the limits of Permit 81-135,including the limitation to 20 cubic yards per day.This is a reasonable limitation that has since been undone by instead limiting the mine by area,to"Pit I and Pit 2".(Resolution 08-24,page 24). To require that the operation follow all requirements imposed upon the originally permitted operation is the only fair and legal action. Finding(G):This section repeatedly claims that"the record is not specific and consistent with regards to whether or not 20 cubic yards per day limit refers to a gross amount or an end product."However,no evidence is provided,in this section or in the record,that would indicate that 20 cubic yards refers to an end product.Furthermore,the staff report for the March 13' Planning Commission Meeting states that the record is"consistently unambiguous"as to what 20 cubic yards represents.It is strange that Finding(G)emphasizes a lack of clarity without pointing to any evidence to support such statements.The ultimate finding,that 20 cubic yards refers to native material,is correct and supported by the entirety of the evidence. Additionally,Finding(G) states:"A revised mining permit would be required to bring the New Era.Mine into compliance."Why is the conditional being used here?Under what circumstances will a revised permit be required?Under what circumstances will one not be required?The greatly enlarged scope of the mining operation has been firmly established,and a new or revised permit is the only possible course of action. Finding(H):The Planning Commission finds that the New Era Mine is in violation of Special Condition 21 of Permit 81-135,yet in the same document permits them to proceed with this violation. Finding(1):"The current New Era Mine operation is no longer in violation of Butte County Cade Section 13-106 and Public Resources Code Section 2773.1 requiring adequate financial assurance to reclaim the site according to the reclamation plan."This statement is incorrect.To date,North Continent Land and Timber has posted a$3,000 bond.This is an inadequate provision for restoration of the site.In my opinion,simply submitting a higher cost estimate does NOT bring them into compliance with Butte County Code and Public Resources Code.Until an adequate amount is posted,the New Era Mine is still in violation of Butte County Code Section 13-106 and Public Resources Code Section 2773.1. Finding(W:The scope of the current operation has indeed substantially deviated from the approved Mining and Reclamation Permit 81-135 Reclamation Plan.The end use,broadly defined as"plant native to area'"is significantly affected by the change in scale of the operation. The reasons delineated in the Resolution(pages 14—20)provide extensive evidence to that effect.I am also attaching several pages of comments on the Environmental Checklist(part of the Initial Study)that was completed in 1981.In many cases,environmental impacts that were deemed"possible"have already occurred or are eminent.This provides evidence under the fourth factor to determine a substantial deviation,which is enumerated in California Code of Regulations Title 14,Chapter 8,Article 1,Section 3502(d),"the consistency of any proposed change to the operation with the previously adopted environmental determinations."A mitigated negative declaration is entirely inappropriate for the current scope of the operation. It is appropriate for the operators to apply for a new permit and reclamation plan. At the very least,I wish to reinforce the Planning Commission's requirement that North Continent Land and Timber,Inc.apply for an amended permit and an amended reclamation plan.While this process is taking place,however,the rate of processing must be limited to that allowed by the original permit and the operation must receive a high level of oversight. Any less than 3 inspections per year is insufficient.And an Environmental Impact Report is essential. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Sincerely, Elicia Whittlesey BA,Environmental Analysis,Pomona College,2007 3527 Dry Creek Road,Butte Valley,California 95965 Comments on Environmental Checklist Here,I identify environmental impacts that have changed due to the increased scale of the operation.In 1981,Stephen Streeter recommended an Environmental Impact Report. Many of the potential impacts that he evaluated have already occurred,and many are much more severe than those contemplated by the scope of the original mining operation. I1.Environmental Impacts 1. Earth b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction,or overcovering of the soil? Checked:Maybe.Actual Impact: Yes. Explanation:To my knowledge,there have been no attempts to preserve the soil,and 12 acres of soil and earth are highly disturbed and probably intermixed. c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features or removal of topsoil? Checked:Maybe.Actual Impact: Yes. Explanation:There is a significant headwall at the site and the topography no longer resembles the original condition.The topsoil has undoubtedly been removed. e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? Checked:Maybe.Actual Impact: Yes. Explanation:Wind and especially water erosion occur consistently on the site.Mud and muddy water flows on site come to within 5 feet of Dry Creek and at times enter the creek. 3. Water b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Checked:Maybe.Actual Impact:Yes. Explanation:Without any vegetation on 12 acres,drainage patterns and runoff are significantly changed,and much more water flows off the site rather than seeping into the ground. L Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Checked:Maybe.Actual Impact: Yes. Explanation: Surface water quality has been affected by periods of turbidity,and temperature is likely to increase due to the death of the riparian overstory from soil compaction adjacent to the mine. g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Checked:No.Actual Impact:Maybe. Explanation: According to Steven Deverel,the removal of New Era formation sediments"may allow drainage of the Tuscan and result in decreasing flow in adjacent springs." h. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Checked:No.Actual Impact:Maybe. Explanation:As cited above,Steven Deverel presents evidence that this evaluation is incorrect. i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Checked:No.Actual Impact:Yes. Explanation:The increased runoff from the site will result in increased flooding hazards to downstream properties and residents during heavy rains. 4. Plant Life.Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Loss of vegetation or change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants(including trees,shrubs,grass,crops,microflora and aquatic plants)? Checked:Maybe.Actual Impact: Yes. Explanation:The operation has already resulted in the obliteration of 12 acres of trees,shrubs, grass,and microflora. 5. Animal Life.Will the proposal result in substantial: d. Reduction of,encroachment upon,or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Checked:No.Actual Impact. Yes. Explanation:The operation has reduced trout habitat where Dry Creek runs adjacent to the mine by exposing the creek to increased sunlight,thereby raising the temperature,and by permitting periodic turbidity.It has also encroached upon habitat for the Box Mountain deer herd, completely degrading 12 acres and causing the deterioration of habitat,through noise and other impacts,for at least a mile surrounding the site. 7. Light and Glare:Will the proposal produce significant light or glare? Checked:No.Actual Impact: Yes. Explanation:The operation has produced significant light and glare observed by a number of Paradise residents(see record). 8. Land Use.Will the proposal produce significant: b. Conflict with uses on adjoining properties,or conflict with established recreational,educational,religious or scientific uses of an area? Checked:Maybe.Actual Impact:Yes. Explanation:This is a residential canyon,and the heavy traffic caused by the mine is incompatible with walking on the road and pursuing quiet activities.Moreover,any detrimental impact to household water also conflicts with the residential use of this area. 13. Transportation/Circulation.Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Checked:No.Actual Impact:Yes. Explanation: Again,90%of the traffic on Dry Creek Road is related to the mine.A substantial increase in vehicular movement has occurred. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? Checked:Maybe.Actual Impact.Yes. Explanation: Hazards have increased due to the vast increase in the volume of the traffic. Moreover,the mine is likely to account for 99%of the traffic by weight—heavy semi-trucks,fuel trucks,and flatbeds hauling tractors significantly decrease the safety of pedestrians,bicyclists, and other vehicles. 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term benefits to the detriment of public adopted long-term environmental goals? Checked:No.Actual Impact. Yes. Explanation:If long-term environmental goals include the protection of clean water,the protection of riparian habitat,and the protection of the quality of life of Butte County residents, than this operation has already compromised such goals.