TO: INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: GRASS VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE / PREPARATION OF AN UPDATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO BEGIN
This status report provides a brief summary of the Idaho-Maryland Mine project and its next steps. The City released a Draft Environmental (EIR) for a public review period extending from October 30, 2008 to January 20, 2009. Though the City received numerous comments on the Draft EIR, the City did not proceed with the preparation of a Final EIR since the applicant, the Idaho-Maryland Mining Corporation (IMMC), stated they were revising their project in 2009. As a result, the environmental review process and the applications were placed on hold by the City, pending a resubmittal of new information or revised application materials by IMMC.
On April 8, 2011, the City received revised applications for the Idaho-Maryland Mine project. After reviewing this initial packet and additional submittals, staff declared the applications to be complete on May 24, 2011. Though the project still largely matches their original proposal, a gold mining project with a ceramics plant and a certain level of aggregate rock production, staff noted a number of proposed changes. The applicant represented in their application materials that a significant portion of these changes were folded into their operation as a way to lessen the environmental impacts of their project. Some of the more significant changes proposed by the applicant include:
• All treatment and discharge of mine water will occur at the Idaho-Maryland site. The water treatment plant proposed for the New Brunswick site has been eliminated. Water will be pumped from New Brunswick and conveyed via a new Bennett Street water line.
• A new potable water trunk line is proposed to be installed in the Brunswick Road area.
• The crushing of waste rock into aggregate material will be done within an indoor facility.
• A number of on-site operational components were modified to reduce greenhouse gases.
• The type and flow of traffic generated by the project will change. All traffic to and from the site will be via Idaho-Maryland Road, Bennett Street will be not used for access. The shift schedules for most employees were changed from three to two 12-hour shifts.
In light of this new information and updated applications, a new updated Draft EIR will be prepared and released for public review and comment. City Staff is currently working with Environmental Science Associates (ESA), the City’s environmental consultant for this project, to develop a scope of work, budget and schedule to complete the revised Draft EIR. It is anticipated that certain agreements seeking to start the environmental process maybe before the City Council on July 26, 2011. The agreements would include the following; 1) an agreement between ESA and the City for preparation of the Draft EIR, 2) an agreement between IMMC and the City for reimbursing the City for all processing costs, and 3) an agreement between a mining consultant and the City for providing specialized expertise in mining operations (to the City). If the agreements are executed in late July or August, a preliminary projection for when the Draft EIR would be released is the winter of 2012. Once a schedule is confirmed for the preparation and release of a Draft EIR, it will be posted on the City’s website and made available for public review.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Truth vs. the BS Emgold keeps spewing:
The City staff report for next Tuesday Emgold item says… “If the agreements are executed (for the new DEIR) in late July or August, a preliminary projection for when the Draft EIR would be released is the winter of 2012″.
But Emgold posted this false claim a few weeks ago on their website… “once work commences, the Revised Draft EIR and the Final EIR will be completed within about 12 months.”
So.. the City says the DEIR would be released for review in the winter of 2012 and Emgold claims the Final EIR process will be COMPLETED within about 12 months.
Emgold is again making false claims and they know it is false!
Emgold is nothing more than a penny stock mining scam from Canada!
Penny stock though it is, as long as they keep issuing DEIRs, we have a divided community and those of us against it can’t relax our vigilance. I hope someday they will just pack up, go back to Canada and leave us alone!
Steve and others,
I carefully read the city’s latest analysis on this project.
I’m increasingly wondering if they’re being “lapdogs” instead of “watchdogs” for this project for the general public because of the promised revenue and failure to diversify beyond construction and real estate. (I guess the city is going to stick with ESA as its environmental consulting firm, too, despite some controversy: http://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2010/04/29/environmental-firm-on-idaho-maryland-mine-project-loses-court-ruling/ ).
I KNOW The Union— a strong hope for an independent voice — has been a “lapdog,” going so far as to recently run a news article written by the mine’s president on the “green” ceramic tiles — one of the most egregious “non-journalism” moves up here. But there have been others related to the mine’s coverage that we’ve discussed on Sierra Foothills Report.
I’m pretty sure the pro-development City Council is going to be a “lapdog.” I don’t see any mavericks on the Council who will ask the right questions about “smart” growth or the unintended consequences of the mine. In fact, the mayoral ascendency in GV was shifted recently to ensure the old guard would be firmly in charge through the DEIR process, expected to begin again this summer. I don’t think that was a coincidence.
Many legitimate concerns have been raised about the mine, INCLUDING economic issues ( http://www.claim-gv.org/economy.html) and Emgold’s capitalization as a junior mining stock. And while an environmental group is articulating them here, a “smart” growth business person could relate to them as well.
Bottom line: Who is going to be the “watchdog” on this project in our community? Would this project face greater scrutiny in the county’s other major cities (Truckee and Nevada City)? Is Grass Valley the exception or the rule in our county when it comes to a project like this? Does the need to “feed the beast” of GV city government and the annexation that has been going on for years play a role?
This sounds like another NH2020 battle royal to me — with the same sides lining up “for” and “against” and the “spin” and personal attacks — but with much greater consequences for our county. And what about the people in the middle? In short, will this project succumb to the western county’s small-town politics or get a truly objective review?
Not only that, Jeff, but this project if it goes ahead will impact many in the surrounding county. That the county sold out its citizens by giving the authority to Grass Valley is a travesty. I have no way of voting the scoundrels out.
The following is a repost of a comment I made here over a year ago, regarding ESA’a (in)competence to produce an EIR:
“Of course, if ESA had done a really good job with the IMM EIR, would it now have to be done over, as the City of Grass Valley ordered in August of last year, eight months ago? (Emgold is apparently having trouble finding money to continue operations).
The original EIR completely ignored the Maest-Kuipers Report, which focuses heavily on the threat to groundwater, a problem poorly covered in the IMM EIR.
The Maest-Kuiper study specifically criticizes poorly done DEIR’s like ours, for failing to take a precautionary approach, plan for worst-case scenarios, and use the latest science and history. If anything, ESA’s EIR has planned for the best-case scenario, the one envisioned by Emgold.
ESA has failed to separate itself from the objectives of Emgold, by swallowing much of their PR instead of relying on science, ie. studies like the Maest-Kuipers report to help them do a professional-quality EIR for a mine project.
ESA has had no experience with mining (they’ve never done a hardrock metal mine EIR), so they relied heavily on Emgold for the “facts” about the project.”
If ESA once again does an incompetent job, the city will once again have to deal with all the weaknesses in the comment process.
If the city eventually approves this project despite the objections, a lawsuit is certain to ensue (IMHO), and when that happens the incompetence of ESA will not help them.