The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLetter from Reid Whittlesey - New Era Mine June 3, 2O08 Of-,��? � ~ Honored Supervisors: The Planning Commission Resolution U8-24iscorrect inrequiring North Continent Land and Timmber, Inc. oappk/foranarnendedpernm�andrec|ammadonpkantooperotetheNexoEroK4ime. Fnmrn ' � ��|u�tAenevv mnyobserva�onoofthe site itse|�odrastic increase inscope has occurred since the an operators.This operation warrants the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act 6�part of amended permit and reclamation process. The exponential increase ' | i otuthatxvenewota6�nessed|mth��ni�� imscope could have nnanys|gnUlrantenvrommmenta rnpo review and the mitigated negative declaration. First, I will provide my most recent observations of the Logan property.Second,I would like to point to a passage from CEQA that make an environmental review inthis case unquestionably necessary. 1hSexena\daysafternmVreturnhonmmfronmthe spring semester atUC Berkeley,between the 24 and 31th of May, 2007, 1 jogged up to the end of Dry Creek Rd,an activity that I have partaken in since age l3.When |came 1othe area that overlooked Logan's property|was astounded tmsee that alarge swath ofthe land had been cleared.Approximately 2-4 acres had been bulldozed. Not six months before (December 2006)there was very little evidence of activity there,and the area that is now the eighteen acre strip mine was covered with grasses,shrubs,and some small trees. When|saw the land \nMay 20O7, like|said,ithad been freshly cleared. |t appeared as though a bulldozer had scraped a couple feet down,tearing up all existing vegetation. No structure was apparent inthe tractor vvor�citvvascrud��and looked asthough they had achieved the purpose ofdearinQthe vegeta�onand smm' othinglarger topographic features inpreparation offurther, more shaping work.The land had been cleared close to the creek(within 10')and trees by the creek that were over 100 years old and had not been felled for the 19QQ^soperation had been cut down urbulldozed down.There were no structures in place to protect the creek from spills or sedimentation due to runoff. Large mounds of the bulldozed debris,which was amixture ofmineral soil, rocks,and woody d around the perimeter otthe area,with some bVthe creek but most onthe west edge ofthe property.Some trees 6w the creek that had not been killed during the initial activity had several feet of soil piled around their bases,which would inevitably kill them inthe coming years. Later in summer 2007 when I returned from trips I watched as the cleared area increased from around three acres in May,to six acres in late June.July also saw an increase in scale,to around eight or ten acres,and August 2DD7was acontinuation ofthe trend. December 2OO7 gave mmeaparticularly alarming view,assediment was piled upnear the creek and pools ofmuddy water were leaking from behind cloth strips. According to CEQA 15064(l), "if the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project nnayhave a significant effect onthe environment,the lead agency shall prepare anE|R(Friends of B Street v. City ofHayward(1980) 1OGCal App'3d9QQ).Said another way, ifalead agency ispresented with afair argument that aproject nmayhaveas}gnUicanteffectonthe environment,the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other BUTTE COUNTY ADMNISTRATION � UUA&U � � �� ,�"n ww um�� ^�~- ^� ^~ � �� . cow -Y Jo ~\ substantial evidence that the project will not have asignificant efex±UVoOil, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (1g74) 23 Cal3d 68)." In my opinion, Butte County has been presented with substantial evidence and many fair arguments that the current incarnation of the New Era Mine could have—and, in fact, is already having—a significant effect on the environment.The hydrology report by Steven Deverel states that"Our analysis and available data indicate that there may be a hydraulic effect of New Era mining operations on Dry Creek springs." North Continent may present evidence to the contrary,including a 3- page report from 1982 that finds no effect possible.An environmental review that evaluates the hydrology in depth is the only fair and legal way to contemplate allowing this operation to proceed. An environmental review that requires full disclosure of the operator's methods and plans and evaluates them with specific reference tothe locality isabsolutely necessary. The operators have applied for astreannbedalteration permit from the Department ofFish and Game,and initthey assert that they have the right todivert half ofthe flow ofthe creek.The operation comes tPwithin 5-10feet ofthe creek ` inplaces,and the riparian vegetation has been severely compromised. Releases of stormwater into the creek,and any purposeful or accidental releases from the settling ponds must be evaluated.Turbidity and rises in temperature severely compromise aquatic habitat. Dry Creek supports many native plant and animal species, including willows,cottonwoods, sycamores,beavers,muskrats, herons,turtles,and trout. It is also an important resource for a great diversity of resident and migratory birds.The effects of this current operation on Dry Creek must be evaluated. ~ -Re\dVKh!tMesey Third-year student, Environmental Science Policy and Management&Conservation and Resource Studies, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley 3S27Dry Creek Road Butte Valley, C4R5965