Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRANSMITTAL OF A RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE M AND T CHICO RANCH MINEOFFICE OF MINE RECLAMATION 801 K STREET MS 09-06 SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814 PHONE 916/323-9198 FAX 916/322-4862 TDD 916/324-2555 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION. STATEOF CALIFORNIA June 10, 2004 BUTU VIA FAXEDo (530_) SM -77R5 COUNTY CONFIRMATION MAILED JUN 15 2004 DEVELOPMENT Mr. Dan Breedon SERVICES Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. Breedon: INTERNET The Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) has consrv.ca.gov reviewed the documents included for a reclamation plan for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine in conjunction with the relevant sections of the Draft EIR as referenced in the submittal. We also reviewed the reclamation plan map ARNOLD and operations map, date stamped November 2003 by butte County. We SCHWARZENEGG ER GOVERNOR previously commented on this project in letters dated November 18, 2002 and October 22, 2003. ti The project will entail the establishment of a 70 -foot deep excavation and an aggregate processing site in a flood prone area along Little Chico Creek in -Butte County on 235 -acres. The site will be reclaimed as open ground water pond and wetland wildlife habitat and is also intended to be used to recharge the groundwater aquifer. The Reclamation Plan uses the "Small Mine Prototype format from the State Mining and Geology Board's website. The Small Mine Prototype is useful for very small operations (5 acres or less) in areas with negligible environmental issues. This format is not appropriate for a site of this size and complexity. The reclamation plan is incomplete and does not meet the minimum requirements of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) (Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq.) and the State 1 Dan Breedon June 10, 2004 Page 2 Mining and Geology Board regulations for surface mining and reclamation practice (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 8, Article 1, Section 3500 et seq.; Article 9, Section 3700 et seq.)..The following items should be included in the reclamation plan. Mining Operation and Cloc„re (Refer to SMARA Sections 2770.5, 2772(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(9), CCR Section 3502(b)(2), (b)(5), 3709(a), (b), 3713(a), (b)) There should be a termination date for the operation, and the time frame in which reclamation will be completed should be discussed (SMARA Section 2772(x)(3))• End Land Llce (Refer to SMARA Section 2772(c)(7), (c)(8), CCR Section 3.707 (a), (c), 3708) 2. The effects of siltation and the reduction in substrate transmissivity values by deposition of suspended sediment carried in Little Chico Creek during periods of flooding has not be evaluated in terms of the proposed end use of'the site as a ground water recharge "lake". The effectiveness of groundwater recharge would be expected to diminish as the ponds silts in. The effect of evaporation of the pond surface would also tend to negate the benefit of any enhanced recharge to the aquifer. We recommend that recharge not,be listed as a beneficial end 'use for this project (CCR Section 503(b)(2) and 3706(b)) unless it is designed and maintained to be functional. Geotechnical Recluirementc, Hydrology and Water Quality (Refer to SMARA Sections 2772(c)(8), 2773(a), and CCR Sections 3502(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), 3503(a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(2), (d), (e), 3704 (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) 3706(a),(b), (c),(d),(e),(f),(g), 3710 (a),(b),(c), 3712) 3. There is no detailed engineered design for the bypass channel or weir structure proposed to mitigate most of the floodplain impacts that would result from the placement of a deep mining pit within 100 feet of Little Chico Creek and in proximity of the Sacramento River. This aspect of the reclamation plan is totally lacking and must be addresses prior to approving the reclamation plan (SMARA Section 2772(c)(8)(B), CCR Section 3706(e)). 4. There is no design basis given for the proposed increase from a 50 -foot to a 100 -foot buffer to be left adjacent to Little Chico Creek. In any case, this buffer has not been incorporated in the cross sections or diagrams supplied for the reclamation plan. The buffer width should be analyzed and incorporated when Dan Breedon. June 10, 2004 . Page 3 I/ adequate. The design parameters should be discussed and verified and included in the site design (SMARA Section2772(c)(8)(B), CCR3706(g)). 5. The mitigation for erosion of the proposed bypass channel is, in part, repair by onsite heavy equipment. The mitigation would not be effective when the site is reclaimed and heavy equipment removed from the project site. The bypass must be designed as a long term solution and have a maintenance agreement. in place to perform repairs after site closure (SMARA Section2772(c)(8)(B), CCR3706(g)). Environmental Setting and Protection of Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Refer to CCR Sections 3502(b)(1), 3503(c), 3703 (a), (b), (c), 3704(g), 3705(a), 3710(d), 3713(b)) 6. Separation of Little Chico Creek and the lake formed following mining only limits commingling of the two water bodies to 10 -year flood events. Therefore, it would be expected that commingling of the waters oftittle Chico Creek and the lake will occur in the future.. The potential for movement of warm water prey species �,,,Lj,:out of the lake and down the creek to the Sacramento River with possible . _ impacts to anadromous fisheries seems possible. We recommend that the plan describe how commingling of waters can be prevented. Resoilina and Reveg tion (a) (Refer to SMARA Section 2773, CCR Sections 3503(a)(1), (f), (g), 3704(c), 3705(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), G), (k), (i), (m), 3707(b), (d), 3711(a), (b), (c), (d),; (e)) 7. The reclamation plan indicates that revegetation will be attained by natural revegetation except those areas where revegetation is "insufficient." Page 7 of the reclamation plan specifies "augmented seedings and plantings will be implemented on a case by case basis." Reliance. on natural revegetation is not an option under the statewide reclamation standards regulations. Proactive measures to achieve the stated end use must be described in the plan, including ° a complete description of the number of plants, cuttings and or seed of each species that will be used in the revegetation plan. A description of the quantities of each species to be planted (seed or, plants) is essential and validates that the revegetation procedures will achieve the performance standards established for each habitat within the specified monitoring period. Seed and plant quantities are also required for formulation of the financial assurance cost estimate. The plan must be augmented with a description of proactive revegetation including quantification of species per unit area for each of the habitats that are to be created. Dan Breedon June 10, 2004 Page 4 8. Although the plan describes three plant communities, maps presented with the submittal do not reflect where each planting will occur within the project. The maps presented were prepared on August 15, 1996 and July 3, 1997 respectively and both are stamped received by the Butte County Planning Division on November 26, 2003. It is not clear if these maps represent the most current design for the project. Identification of the specific areas where each habitat community will be established with a descriptor of the total acreage for each habitat needs to, be included in the plan. The reclamation text indicates the,formation of a nesting island in the deepest portion of the lake. However, exhibit 2 shows the nesting island adjacent to' the east shoreline. The presumption of a "nesting island" is to provide a safe breeding area separated from the shoreline by deep water that restricts access to the nesting island by predators. As depicted, the island location does not appear to meet these criteria and appears to be at odds with the text. Location of the island needs to be clarified. -9 *:Construction of shoreline habitat is an appropriate approach for reclamation of the project but the plan needs to contain more detailed,information concerning the water fluctuation levels and how this would impact the 50 foot wide bench created for the "margin habitat." The plan does not describe any irregular features to the shoreline such as peninsulas or bays. The revegetation plan reports that 2.5 million yards of overburden and 500,000 yards of fines will be available for reclamation. We recommend that overburden and fines be used to construct irregularities to the shoreline to further enhance habitat quality of the reclamation. A final reclamation map illustrating the modified shoreline needs to be included in the plan and a visual presentation of the 50 -foot wide margin habitat illustrated. 10. Construction of wildlife habitat requires specific revegetation performance 1 standards (CCR 3705 (m)) for each of the three habitats proposed. The reclamation plan fails to describe performance standards and must be augmented with this information. Each of the three habitats must contain the following standards; species richness, density and percent cover. All three of the standards must be based solely on native perennial species. Species richness and density must be presented as whole numbers per unit area (e.g. 100m2). Species richness is the number of native species per unit area and density is the number of live, perennial stems per unit area. Dan Breedon June 10, 2004 Page 5 11. Revegetation monitoring must also be described. The plan does mention that revegetation- will be monitored for five years but the plan fails to link monitoring to performance standards. Approval of the release of the financial assurance cannot be granted until the revegetation performance standards have been achieved. The plan must state that revegetation will be monitored annually,in the spring by a qualified botanist or restoration ecologist for a minimum of five years following planting. A description of the monitoring plan must include a discussion _ of the statistical sampling method for determining revegetation. success: The sampling method must: provide at,a minimum an 8016/o confidence level that the portion of the revegetation sampled represents the revegetation of the site as a .whole. Failure to achieve the standards within in this time period will require remedial measures and continued monitoring until the performance standards have been achieved. Administrative Requirements - (Refer to SMARA Sections 2772 (c)(10), 2773.1, 2774(b), 2776, 2777, PRC Section 21151.7) - -1=2-.The-reclamation plan --must be supplemented -with -the applicants- signed.__ statement of responsibility for reclaiming the site in accordance with the plan (SMARA Section 2772(c)(10)). If you have any questions on these comments, please contact me at (916) 323-8565. Sincerely, �� =L`�' BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. o= 'V GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS 1764 SKYWAY / CHICO, CA 95928 -(530) 891-6555 (530) 894-6220 FAx November 17, 2005 Mr. Dan Breedon Principal Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Breedon: Enclosed please find revised Attachment 6 (M&T Chico Ranch Mine Reclamation Plan & Cross Sections) to the Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents for the M&T Chico Ranch Mine (September 2004). This revised Attachment 6 is submitted as described in Rene A.Vercruyssen's October 31 submittal of responses to Butte County Public Works comments of June 22, 2005. The enclosed Attachment 6 is submitted to be included in Rene's October 31 submittal. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Rene'. Sincerely, Michael Pole Cc: Rene' A. Vercruyssen Ross Simmons, North Star Engineering Jeff Dorso, Diepenbrock Harrison 09 7 �� . Al