Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPentz Pit Rec Plan Amendment - Compass Land letter addressing DMR comments 3140 PEACEKEEPER WAY   SUITE 102   MCCLELLAN, CA  95652   TEL:   916.825.4997   WWW.COMPASSLAND.NET  Via:  Electronic Mail Delivery    March 14, 2022      Mr. Rowland Hickel  Senior Planner  Butte County  Department of Development Services  7 County Center Drive  Oroville, California 95965    Subject: Response to DMR Comments and Revised Reclamation Plan for the Pentz Pit  Mine (Minor Modification)    Dear Rowland:  On behalf of NorCal Sand and Rock, Inc. (“NorCal”), we are pleased to submit the enclosed update  to the Revised Reclamation Plan for the Pentz Pit Mine (Butte County Mine ID No. 91‐04‐0001),  along with responses to the comments made by the State Division of Mine Reclamation (“DMR”)  in their letter dated July 28, 2021.   For your convenience, we have included a copy of DMR’s  letter as Attachment 1.  We understand that that the County will review and process the Revised  Reclamation Plan as a minor modification to the existing Reclamation Plan 78‐99 approved on  June 7, 1978 (“RP 78‐99”) pursuant to Butte County Code (“BCC”) Section 13‐118 (“Minor  Modification”).    Each of DMR’s substantive comment categories is listed below in italics, followed immediately by  our response.    1. Reclamation Plan Amendment Maps  Regarding ownership of surface and mineral interests, Baldwin Contracting, Inc. owns the mineral  rights for all areas subject to mining under the revised Plan.  We have added the names and  addresses of all of the owners of the surface interests to Plan Section 2.1.5 and Sheet 2,  Ownership and Legal Descriptions.  The owners of surface interests include Baldwin Contracting  (APNs 041‐120‐075, 041‐120‐082, 041‐720‐008, and 041‐720‐016), Hyalite Investments (APN  041‐120‐104), Sayegh Brothers (APN 041‐720‐002), and Nelms Kay Marie Family Trust (APN 041‐ 720‐005).    Regarding accurately drawn property lines, the Plan figures and sheets have been updated with  property lines prepared by Andrew Hammond, PE and PLS, of Element Engineering, Inc. (an  Mr. Rowland Hickel  March 14, 2022  Page 2      01 ‐ Cover Letter (Compass 3.14.22)  appropriately licensed professional) on December 29, 2021.  A copy of the surveyor’s boundary  exhibit has been added to Plan Appendix A.    Regarding topographic contours, the existing and final topography is shown on Sheets 1 and 3.   Contours lines are drawn at appropriate intervals where final topographic conditions will differ  from existing conditions.  Where new contour lines are not shown, the site will be reclaimed  consistent with the existing topographic conditions.  Existing topographic contours are shown  with elevation labels.    Regarding a geologic description of the area, Figure 6, Site Geology Map, was prepared and  stamped by Compass’ affiliate geologist, Jeff Light, PG (an appropriately licensed professional).   The updated geologic description of the site presented in Plan Section 2.3.4 was also prepared  by Mr. Light.   2. Designed Steepness of Slopes  Final slopes have been designed by Wayne Chang, PE, of Chang Consultants, Inc., with  consideration to the physical properties of the material, probable water content, revegetation  objectives, and current site conditions.  Final cut slopes will be left at 2H:1V, which are flatter  than the natural angle of repose (critical gradient) of the material, as evidenced by the steeper  existing steep standing slope faces along the north and south sides of the east pit area in the  mine tailings geologic unit.  It is well established based on site‐specific soil properties, on‐site  observations, and Chang’s extensive industry mine planning experience, that the planned 2H:1V  finish slopes are adequate for an open space end use in the mine tailings.  Further, these finish  slope angles are flatter than those approved by the County under the original reclamation plan,  which only specified that “all slopes left by our operation will be at or flatter than the natural  angle of repose of the material.”  This Plan represents a minor modification to the original  approved plan and no substantial changes to the original slope allowances are proposed.  Plan  Section 2.5.1 has been updated accordingly.  Please also see Attachment 2 for a letter from Mr.  Chang regarding the slope design.   3. Landowner Notification  Baldwin Contracting owns the mineral estate for areas that are subject to surface mining under  this Plan.  Baldwin’s acknowledgment of the end use is evidenced by their consent to file  application for this Plan (see Plan Appendix B).  We have also updated Plan Appendix B to includes  copies of notices mailed via certified mail to the other owners of the surface estate (i.e., Hyalite  Investments, Sayegh Brothers, and Nelms Kay Marie Family Trust) regarding the planned end use.    4. Topsoil Resources  NorCal does not anticipate the need for any additional topsoil stripping to harvest resources  under this Plan.  However, we have updated Plan Section 2.8 to clarify that in the unanticipated  event that excavations must progress below native soils, then topsoil resources will be mapped  Mr. Rowland Hickel  March 14, 2022  Page 3      01 ‐ Cover Letter (Compass 3.14.22)  prior to stripping and topsoil stockpiles would be located in the areas designated for overburden  stockpiles as shown on Sheet 3.    We have also updated Plan Section 2.8 to clarify that if resoiling occurs with soil that has been  chemically altered or growth media other than native topsoil, then soil analysis will be conducted  followed by appropriate soil treatments.    5. Test Plots  We previously described test plots in Plan Section 2.9.2.  We have updated this section to clarify  that test plots will be conducted simultaneously with mining, and that the use the test plot will  help determine the most appropriate planting procedures to be followed to ensure successful  implementation of the revegetation plan.    6. Sediment and Erosion Control  We note that CCR Sections 3503 relates to surface mining and reclamation practices, whereas  CCR Sections 3706 and 3710 relate to reclamation‐related performance standards.  We have  removed reference to the prior “pending SWPPP” from Plan Section 2.6.1. We have also updated  the section  to clarify that NorCal meets the minimum practices and performance standards  through existing coverage under active WDID No. 5R04I022689 with a SWPPP prepared by  Water414, Inc., dated January 2021.  Further, an updated SWPPP will be filed with the RWQCB  once this Plan is approved and becomes effective to ensure consistency with the site specific  mining disturbance, reclamation, watershed areas and performance standards described in this  Plan.  The SWPPP may be updated again from time to time as site specific conditions evolve.  Until  such time as this Plan is effective, NorCal will continue to operate in accordance with the existing  SWPPP, which was developed by qualified professionals in support of existing operations at the  site.    7. Revegetation Research Requirements  We have updated Plan Section 2.9.1 to describe the research conducted to inform the  revegetation plan, which is intended to support an end use of open space that is suitable for  dryland grazing.    8. Editorial Comments  We have updated Plan Section 2.4.1 to identify the adjacent mines as L‐7 mine, CA ID # 91‐04‐ 0037, and the Pentz Aggregate mine, CA ID # 91‐04‐0029, as requested.    NorCal is the operator of the mine.  We did not find a reference to “Valley Sand and Rock”  anywhere in the Plan narrative.    ***  Mr. Rowland Hickel  March 14, 2022  Page 4      01 ‐ Cover Letter (Compass 3.14.22)  We look forward to your approval of this Minor Modification.  Please contact me at 916‐825‐ 4997 if you have any questions or need additional information.      Sincerely,    Yasha Saber  Compass Land Group  ysaber@compassand.net    Encl.    cc: Michael Hickerson, NorCal Sand and Rock, Inc.   Rene Vercruyssen, Baldwin Contracting, Inc.      ATTACHMENT 1  DMR LETTER DATED 7/28/2021        Gavin Newsom, Governor David Shabazian, Director State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS 09-06, Sacramento, CA 95814 conservation.ca.gov | T: (916) 323-9198 July 28, 2021 Mr. Rowland Hickel Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95695 Copy sent via email: rhickel@buttecounty.net Notice of Incomplete Reclamation Plan Amendment Submission Pentz Pit Mine (California Mine ID #91-04-0001) Dear Mr. Hickel: The Department of Conservation’s Division of Mine Reclamation (Division) received a Reclamation Plan Amendment (RPA) for Pentz Pit mine submitted by Butte County (County) on June 28, 2021. The County is the lead agency under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA; Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2710 et seq.). The Division determined that the submittal is incomplete pursuant to PRC Section 2772.1(b)(1): “An incomplete submission is one that does not meet the contents requirements of Section 2772, 2773, and 2773.3 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 3500) and Article 9 (commending with Section 3700) of Subchapter 1 of Chapter 8 of Division 2 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), as applicable.” Pursuant to PRC Section 2772.1(b)(3), the Division’s time to prepare written comments regarding the RPA will commence when the Division receives the following information or documents: 1. Reclamation Plan Amendment Maps: The RPA maps submitted do not comply with the requirements of PRC Section 2772(c)(5). This section requires that reclamation plan maps include: a. Size and legal description of the lands that will be affected by the surface mining operation and the names and addresses of all surface interests and mineral interests in the lands. The RPA presents Baldwin Contracting Inc. as sole owner of surface and mineral interests for areas subject to mining disturbance. It is the Division’s understanding that Baldwin Contracting Inc. is not the sole owner and the RPA submittal lacks current DocuSign Envelope ID: 29084530-B43A-4174-B37E-CB7EEDC1787E Mr. Rowland Hickel Pentz Pit Mine July 28, 2021 Page 2 of 5 ownership and participating interests for parcels 041-720-005, 041-720-002 and 041-120-104. b. Clearly defined and accurately drawn property lines as required by PRC Section 2772(c)(5)(B) are not included in the RPA. Property lines depicted on Figure 6 of the RPA are not consistent with the requirements of PRC Section 2772(c)(5)(F) which requires preparation by an appropriately licensed professional. c. Existing topography and final topography depicted with contour lines drawn at appropriate intervals for the site’s conditions. Sheets 1 and 2 of the RPA must be revised to include elevations for existing topography and present final topography for the entirety of the site. d. A detailed geologic description of the area of the surface mining operation as required by PRC section 2772(c)(5)(D) is not included in the RPA. The geologic map presented as Figure 5 in the RPA is inconsistent with the requirements of PRC Section 2772(c)(5)(F) which requires preparation by an appropriately licensed professional. 2. Designed Steepness of Slopes: The submitted RPA does not consider the physical properties of the slope material, its probable water content, landscaping requirements, or other factors in determining an appropriate final slope angle. The RPA addresses final slope angles in Section 2.5.1 of the RPA, stating: “The finish slope angles are flatter than the natural angle of repose of the material, as evidenced by steep standing slope faces along the north and south sides of the east pit area. These finish slopes are adequate for the planned end use.” CCR Section 3502(b)(3) requires “The designed steepness and proposed treatment of the mined lands’ final slopes shall take into consideration the physical properties of the slope material, its probable maximum water content, landscaping requirements, and other factors. In all cases, reclamation plans shall specify slope angles flatter than the critical gradient for the type of material.” The RPA must be revised to assess the designed steepness of final slopes as required by CCR Section 3502(b)(3). 3. Landowner Notification: The submitted RPA must comply with the requirements of PRC Section 2772(c)(7) for parcels 041-720-005, 041-720-002 and 041-120-104 requiring evidence that all owners of a possessory interest in the land have been notified of the proposed use or potential uses. 4. Topsoil Resources: Baseline studies to support development of practices and performance standards for topsoil salvage, management, and distribution are DocuSign Envelope ID: 29084530-B43A-4174-B37E-CB7EEDC1787E Mr. Rowland Hickel Pentz Pit Mine July 28, 2021 Page 3 of 5 required per PRC Section 2773(a). These studies are considered incomplete in the RPA submittal. To be considered a complete submission, the RPA must: a. Identify and map topsoil resources prior to stripping, as well as identify and map the location of topsoil stockpiles pursuant to CCR Section 3711(b). b. Determine the need for soil analysis if the growth media consists of other than native topsoil pursuant to CCR Section 3705(d). 5. Test Plots: The RPA lacks test plots that evaluate appropriate planting procedures for diverse site-specific vegetation and geologic characteristics to ensure successful implementation of the proposed reclamation plan. PRC Section 2773 requires that the RPA be “… applicable to a specific piece of property or properties…” and “…based upon the character of the surrounding area and such characteristics…” as “…topography, geology, climate, stream characteristics…” and the RPA “…shall establish site-specific criteria for evaluating compliance with the approved RP, including topography, revegetation and sediment and erosion control.” Furthermore, CCR Section 3705(b) requires that test plots be conducted simultaneously with mining. These requirements need to be included in the RPA for this submittal to be considered complete. 6. Sediment and Erosion Control: The discharger’s documented compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Industrial Stormwater Permit Program is incorporated by reference in the submitted RPA to address requirements of PRC Section 2773(a), CCR Sections 3503, 3706, and 3710 relating to site-specific sediment and erosion control. Division staff reviewed the pending Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for this mine located on the SWCRB “Stormwater Multiple Application and Reporting System” ((SMARTS), https://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/). The pending SWPPP for Pentz Pit contains maps that are inconsistent with site specific mining disturbance, reclamation and watershed areas as identified in the submitted RPA. PRC Section 2773(a) requires that the RPA be applicable to a specific piece of property. Referencing a pending SWPPP that is inconsistent with site-specific characteristics prohibits compliance review for the performance standards for sediment and erosion control. The submittal will be considered complete when the SWPPP reflects site-specific disturbance and watershed areas that align with the performance standards for: DocuSign Envelope ID: 29084530-B43A-4174-B37E-CB7EEDC1787E Mr. Rowland Hickel Pentz Pit Mine July 28, 2021 Page 4 of 5 a. soil erosion control, water quality and watershed control, disposal of overburden and waste rock, and drainage and erosion outlined in CCR Section 3503; b. drainage and erosion control pursuant to CCR Section 3706; and, c. protection of streams, surface and groundwater pursuant to CCR Section 3710. Furthermore, site-specific erosion control mechanisms for settling ponds must comply with CCR Section 3503(e). These mechanisms were not included in the RPA submittal or corresponding pending SWPPP. 7. Revegetation Research Requirements: Research addressing revegetation methods and site-specific species selection must be utilized pursuant to CCR Section 3503(g). The submitted RPA must comply with these requirements providing evidence that revegetation methods and selected seed species utilize available research to support good survival characteristics specific to the mined areas. In addition, the following editorial comments are provided to facilitate clarity of the review: E1. Section 2.4.1 misidentifies a former mine bordering the north side of Pentz Pit as “Lucky 7 mine.” A correction should be made to identify this mine as L-7 mine, CA ID # 91-04-0037, and the Pentz Aggregate mine, CA ID # 91-04-0029. E2. The RPA provides inconsistencies in operator identification throughout the document. Discrepancies between “Valley Sand and Rock” and “NorCal Sand and Rock” should be resolved in future submittals. If you have any questions, please contact us at (916) 323-9198. Sincerely, Carol E. Atkins Ian Stevenson, P.G. Manager Manager Environmental Services Unit Engineering and Geology Unit DocuSign Envelope ID: 29084530-B43A-4174-B37E-CB7EEDC1787E Mr. Rowland Hickel Pentz Pit Mine July 28, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Joanne Heraty Mike Luksic, P.G. Environmental Scientist Geologist Environmental Services Unit Engineering and Geology Unit ec: Yasha Saber, Compass Land Group, NorCal Sand and Rock, Inc., ysaber@compassland.net Jerred Ferguson, Central Valley Regional Quality Control Board Jerred.Ferguson@waterboards.ca.gov DocuSign Envelope ID: 29084530-B43A-4174-B37E-CB7EEDC1787E ATTACHMENT 2  CHANG CONSULTANTS LETTER DATED 2/1/2022        Chang Civil Engineering◦Hydrology◦Hydraulics◦Sedimentation P.O. Box 9496 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067-4496 T: 858.692.0760 F: 858.832.1402 wayne@changconsultants.com February 1, 2022 Yasha Saber Compass Land Group 3140 Peacekeeper Way, Suite 102 McClellan, CA 95652 Subject: Pentz Pit Mine Reclamation Plan Amendment – Proposed Slope Angles Dear Yasha: This responds to comment 2 from the Division of Mine Reclamation’s July 28, 2021 letter. The comment refers to CCR Section 3502(b)(3), which requires: The designed steepness and proposed treatment of the mined lands' final slopes shall take into consideration the physical properties of the slope material, its probable maximum water content, landscaping requirements, and other factors. In all cases, reclamation plans shall specify slope angles flatter than the critical gradient for the type of material involved. Whenever final slopes approach the critical gradient for the type of material involved, regulatory agencies shall require an engineering analysis of the slope stability. Special emphasis on slope stability and design shall be necessary when public safety or adjacent property may be affected. The proposed mine slopes have been designed with a maximum inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Based on a conversation with a geotechnical engineer, the critical gradient can be considered the angle of repose. Based on a site visit and observations of the steeper interim working slopes, 2:1 slopes are flatter than the angle of repose for the mining area. In addition, 2:1 slopes are commonly proposed and approved for grading design of all types of development projects. Therefore, 2:1 slopes are able to meet stability and safety requirements. Sincerely, Wayne W. Chang, M.S., P.E.