Of the five mining operations that have already commenced mining activity, only three operations actively mined aggregate material in 2015— Cemex, Granite-Capay, and Teichert-Esparto. Syar Industries, which has an approved Interim Management Plan, remained idle in 2015. An Interim Management Plan is a temporary plan designed to address public health, safety, and environmental issues while the site remains idle. Teichert did not mine at their Woodland facility in 2015; however they continued to sell enough reserves from existing stockpiles to remain “active” under SMARA and thus not requiring an Interim Management Plan.
Production figures for individual mining operations are proprietary and may not be included in this report. However, staff has reviewed sales figures and production data provided by the operators, which shows that none of the mining operators exceeded their allocations in 2015. Overall, aggregate production has remained rather low over the past several years due to the struggling economy; however, it has rebounded slightly. As a point of reference, in 2003, during the peak of the construction boom, the total amount of material sold from operators along Cache Creek exceeded 5.3 million tons compared with just over 1.5 million tons sold in 2012, which was the lowest in the program’s history (Attachment C). In 2015, 2.69 million tons were sold, representing a 25% increase from 2014.
Summary of Mining and Reclamation Activities in 2015
The following is a snapshot description of each mining operation in 2015, which includes a brief summary of mining and reclamation activities, including any permits or modifications approved by the County.
Cemex
Mining and Reclamation Activity in 2015: Cemex continued to mine Phases 3 and 4 in 2015. Mining was conducted with the electric floating dredge and a small portion on the east side of Phase 4 was conducted with scrapers, excavators, and loaders. The dredge is shut down for maintenance; therefore, Cemex began dry mining portions of Phase 4. Cemex continued to reclaim Phase 1 to agriculture with processing plant wash fines, and also continued revegetation efforts on the levee repair areas and the areas between the mining site and Cache Creek. Cemex also performed slope recontouring on the north side of Phase 3 and the east side of Phase 4.
Permit Activity in 2015: In 2014, Cemex was issued a Notice of Violation for deviating from their approved mining plan. The spatial pattern of mining was not in substantial compliance with the mining plans that were approved as part of ZF 95-093. The approved mining plan describes several pits within each phase, and each pit having its own mining depth and slope requirements. With the introduction of the dredge in 2004, these distinct pits have been merged into one contiguous wet pit. Staff brought the Notice of Violation to the attention of the Planning Commission at the June 12, 2014 Planning Commission hearing. Staff issued Cemex a Correction Plan, which outlined specific procedures for rectifying the issue. The Correction Plan required Cemex to submit an application for a minor modification to the mining plan. It was determined that Cemex could continue mining with the dredge in the current configuration in the open phases without any impacts to public health and safety, and slope stability. At the completion of mining within Phase 3, and once the dredge is located entirely within Phase 4, Cemex will begin to rebuild the individual berms between the pits as required in the mining and reclamation plans. Additionally, Cemex had Cunningham Engineering survey the property to determine exact mining limits to ensure that mining did not encroach within the 200-foot setback from Cache Creek. Cemex then field staked the setback limits and conducted earthwork to bring the slopes in Phase 3 within the mining limits. The minor modification was approved in May 2015. Therefore, the violation has been removed. The setbacks in Phase 3 will continue to be monitored during the annual inspections.
Inspection and Financial Assurance: The Cemex facility was inspected on December 1, 2015. Cemex submitted a submitted a financial assurance cost estimate of $2,796,793.25 in 2015.
Granite-Capay
Mining and Reclamation Activities in 2015: Granite continued to dry mine Phase 1B. Phase 1A continued to receive wash fines to raise the ground level for future agricultural reclamation.
Permit Activity in 2015: In November 2015, Granite submitted an application (ZF #2015-0058) to amend their existing mining permit to eliminate a Condition of Approval which describes the general hours of operation for the facility. On April 14, 2016, the Planning Commission voted to recommend elimination of Condition of Approval #55.4 and recommended the new Condition of Approval #55.5, as proposed by the applicant, but with several modifications. On May 31, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved the amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and added additional clarifying language to the Condition of Approval. The final language of the adopted Condition of Approval #55.5 now reads:
“The operator shall provide the County, and upon request any member of the public, with the 24-hour contact information of a designated representative(s) of the company to whom noise complaints or inquiries may be submitted. The operator shall keep a log of noise related complaints and inquiries, and any actions taken to address the complaint/inquiry. The operator shall respond to any inquiry and complaint within two business days. The operator shall submit a log of noise related complaints/inquiries and any actions taken to the County Administrator along with the Annual Mining and Reclamation Report.
This condition of approval shall be effective for a period of eighteen months following approval by the Board of Supervisors. After one year following approval by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission shall review complaint logs, noise studies, and other pertinent information to determine whether to make this condition of approval permanent or whether other conditions of approval are warranted. In no event shall the conditions of approval be more restrictive than the former Condition of Approval #55.4.”
Inspection and Financial Assurance: The Granite-Capay facility was inspected on November 30, 2015. Granite submitted a financial assurance cost estimate of $1,385,288 in 2015.
Granite-Esparto
Mining and Reclamation Activities in 2015: Mining is not permitted to begin at the Esparto site until mining is completed at the Granite Construction-Capay site and no sooner than 2021.The Granite Construction-Esparto Mining and Reclamation Permit was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 2011. The 30-year permit allows for aggregate extraction and processing from a 313-acre mining area on portions for two adjacent parcels (APNs 048-220-015 and -022) subject to conditions of approval. In accordance with the approved reclamation plan, the site will be reclaimed to ±44 acres of habitat, ±112 acres of agriculture, and ±157 acres of open water pond.
Permit Activity in 2015: None.
Inspection and Financial Assurance: The Granite-Esparto site is still in agricultural production, and has not been mined. Therefore, no inspection or financial assurance is required.
Syar Industries
Mining and Reclamation Activities in 2015: Syar remained idle in 2015 and did not mine any material; however, they occasionally sold material from stockpiles. The Planning Commission approved an Interim Management Plan (ZF #2011-0049) for Syar Industries on December 8, 2011, which is valid for five years. Syar recently submitted an application to extend the Interim Management Plan for another five years. This will be brought before the Planning Commission in the fall of 2016.
Permit Activity in 2015: None.
Inspection and Financial Assurance: The Syar facility was inspected on November 30, 2015. Syar submitted a financial assurance cost estimate of $1,276,569.24 in 2015.
Teichert-Esparto
Mining and Reclamation Activities in 2015: Teichert continued to dry mine and wet mine in the Mast pit. Reclamation activities in 2015 included sloping of perimeter slopes at 2:1 on the Mast site.
Permit Activity in 2015: In April 2015, County staff received a complaint that Teichert was employing dewatering practices in the Mast pit. The OCSMO prohibits dewatering activities. Section 10-4.412 of the OCSMO states: “Under no circumstances, shall any off-channel excavation use dewatering as a part of their surface mining operations.” Though dewatering is prohibited in the OCSMO, the term is not defined. Typically in the mining industry, dewatering involves the lowering of groundwater or surface water by pumping to allow mining in relatively dry conditions to improve the efficiency of mining methods. This did not appear to be the case with Teichert’s use of pumping surface water.
Staff requested information and analysis, and held numerous meetings with Teichert over the course of several months, to figure out the scope and scale of the pumping activities. In August 2015, staff notified Teichert that the pumping activities were inconsistent with the OCSMO and resulted in a “condition of concern” pursuant to the Administrative Policy. Teichert began preparation of the Correction Plan and retained a Professional Geologist/Certified Hydrogeologist (Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE)) to prepare detailed analysis to determine if the operational change may constitute an increased risk to groundwater resources or imminent impacts to health, safety, or the environment. The County retained the services of a Professional Geologist/Certified Hydrogeologist (Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline)) to review all documents submitted by Teichert and to aid in our determination.
LSCE found that there is no indication that mining activities have had an impact on groundwater levels over the period of record reviewed, and specifically current mining activities since 2011, even in the wells that are located immediately adjacent to the mining pits. LSCE concluded that there is no apparent physical mechanism introduced by the operational change that could constitute an increased risk to groundwater resources or imminent impacts to health, safety, or the environment. Similarly, after reviewing all of the available information, the County’s consultant (Baseline) found that there is substantial evidence to support a determination that there is no imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, safety, or environment related to the ongoing extraction of water from the on-site wet pits for use in the aggregate processing plant, as long as the water use does not substantially exceed the amount used during the monitoring period (i.e., 160 acre-feet per year) and the washwater is returned to the Reiff or Mast ponds (so that the aquifer can be recharged).
Based on the determinations by LSCE and Baseline, and continued meetings with county staff, Teichert submitted a revised Correction Plan on March 15, 2016, which proposes a timeline for coming into compliance with the OCSMO. Teichert proposes to amend the OCSMO to allow dewatering on a site-specific basis if surface mining operators can demonstrate that the proposed dewatering would not adversely affect the surrounding environment. Teichert submitted the application to amend OCSMO in July 2016. The item will go before the Planning Commission later in 2016. Should the ordinance amendment be successful, Teichert would then apply to amend their mining permit to provide for conditions under which dewatering can occur at the Teichert Esparto site (Reiff pit, Mast pit, and plant). As part of the mining permit amendment application, Teichert will submit a technical analysis from a Registered Civil Engineer or Certified Hydrogeologist that demonstrates that the proposed dewatering will comply with the proposed OCSMO ordinance requirements.
The County Administrator accepted the Correction Plan on April 5, 2016. Teichert will be responsible for following the schedule outlined in the Correction Plan to achieve compliance. As referenced in the Recommended Action section of this staff report, and as detailed in the Findings (Attachment B), Teichert-Esparto is found to be in “conditional” compliance with several findings due to the status of the water pumping activities as described above.
Inspection and Financial Assurance: The Teichert-Esparto facility was inspected on December 1, 2015. Teichert submitted a financial assurance cost estimate of $1,340,519.78 in 2015.
Teichert-Schwarzgruber
Mining and Reclamation Activities in 2015: Mining is not permitted to begin at the Teichert-Schwarzgruber site until mining is completed at the Teichert-Woodland site. The Teichert Schwarzgruber Mining and Reclamation Permit was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 13, 2012. The permit allows Teichert to take over mining on approximately 40.7 acres of the Schwarzgruber and Sons site and subsequently reclaim approximately 94 acres located south of Cache Creek to a mix of seasonal pond, riparian wetland, and grassland. Although mining cannot commence at the site until mining ceases at the adjacent Teichert Woodland site, occasional sales occur from the previously mined material stockpiles.
Permit Activity in 2015: None.
Inspection and Financial Assurance: The Teichert-Schwarzgruber facility was inspected on December 1, 2015. Teichert submitted a financial assurance cost estimate of $690,240.03 in 2015.
Teichert-Woodland
Mining and Reclamation Activities in 2015: Teichert did not mine at the Woodland facility in 2015, but continued to sell material from existing inventory at the plant site. The Storz site (Phase III) is the only remaining phase at the Woodland facility that has not been completed. Teichert re-shaped slopes and cut benches into the southern boundary of the Storz site in 2015.
Reclamation at the Muller agricultural site (Phase I) was completed in 2008, and has been farmed in wheat and hay crops ever since. The Planning Commission approved the release of financial assurances for this portion of Phase I on March 13, 2014. Reclamation at the Muller pond site (Phase I) was completed in 2010. Monitoring and maintenance activities continued at this site in 2014. It is expected that the Muller pond/habitat site will be dedicated to the County as a “net gain” in 2016/2017. Mining at the Coors site (Phase II) ceased in 2009 and the site is in the process of being reclaimed to agriculture..
Permit Activity in 2015: In response to a September 5, 2012, California Department of Conservation Lead Agency Review of Yolo County, and as required as a Condition of Approval for the Teichert Schwarzgruber Mining and Reclamation Project (ZF 2011-0035), the County required that Teichert provide detailed site plans that clarify the reclamation boundary and end use of the plant site. Teichert submitted an application (ZF 2013-0023) for a Minor Modification in 2013, which was reviewed by the Department of Conservation and County staff. The Minor Modification was approved on May 30, 2014. The plant site reclamation plan commits Teichert to reclaim the 128-acre plant site to a mix of habitats, including grassland and grassland slopes, mixed riparian scrub forest, and oak riparian woodland strands. Reclamation of the plant site to the proposed various habitats is consistent with the requirements of the Cache Creek Area Plan.
Inspection and Financial Assurance: The Teichert-Woodland facility was inspected on December 1, 2015. Teichert submitted a financial assurance cost estimate of $501,364.77 for the plant site, and $1,053,379.97 for the mining areas in 2015.
Summary of OCMP Program Updates in 2015
Administrative Policy
In June 2014, the Planning Commission directed staff to examine ways to address compliance issues (for non-SMARA issues and issues where there is no imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, safety, or the environment) before they reach a level of a violation. Staff developed an administrative policy to deal with these issues and subsequently met with gravel operators on July 24, 2014, to request feedback on the proposed process. In short, the administrative policy outlines a procedure to document potential violations and provides operators a specific timeframe to remedy the issue(s). The main purpose of the administrative policy is to open lines of communication between the County and the operator and provide a reasonable amount of time to fix potential problems within the context and authority of the Off-Channel Surface Mining Ordinance and the Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance. The final administrative policy was agreed upon by all mining operators, and was reviewed by County Counsel. In July 2015, staff presented the Administrative Policy to the Planning Commission and amended the Administrative Policy to include an additional step to notify the Planning Commission through an information item once a Correction Plan has been finalized.
Mercury Monitoring Protocols
Section 10-5.517 of the Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance requires that each mining area to be reclaimed to a permanent lake as part of each approved long-range mining plan shall be evaluated annually by the operator for five years after the creation of the lake for conditions that could result in significant methylmercury production. An additional ten years of biennial monitoring must be performed after the reclamation of each lake has been completed. This requirement is also memorialized as a project level Condition of Approval and mitigation measure in each of the Environmental Impact Reports adopted for each project where permanent lakes will be created as part of the approved reclamation plan.
As part of the ongoing recent efforts to improve the mining program staff performed a thorough review of historical records for each mining operation and determined that this requirement had not been fully implemented at each operation. After speaking with operator representatives, it became evident that prior staff had concluded that this requirement was not triggered until after reclamation had occurred. The fact that this section is codified in the Reclamation Ordinance rather than in the Mining Ordinance contributed to this outcome. Moreover there is information in the record suggesting that required evaluation could not be undertaken so long as active mining was causing turbulence and mixing of the waters in the ponds.
In researching the background of this regulation, current County staff has concluded that the five years of monitoring is triggered once the lake is created (e.g. fills with groundwater) notwithstanding the fact that mining is still being conducted. In addition, based on consultation with an expert in the field, staff confirmed that this regulation could successfully be undertaken, from a technical point of view without causing delays or stoppage in mining.
Dr. Darell Slotton is an expert in the study of mercury. He was the County’s technical consultant on this issue when the CCAP was formulated in 1995-96 and did subsequent work for the County to establish baseline information and regulatory guidance for the program. The County recently contracted with Dr. Slotton, to reexamine the wet pit mercury monitoring requirements in question and help the County develop a set of procedures and protocols to ensure consistent implementation of the regulations by each operator (Attachment F).
After developing a draft set of protocols and procedures, County staff met with the mining operators to review and receive comments on the draft recommendations. The protocols and procedures were finalized in January 2015 and will be included as part the comprehensive update of the CCAP.
There are currently four operations (Cemex, Teichert Esparto, Teichert Woodland (Storz), and Syar) that would require the initial five years of methylmercury monitoring. Dr. Slotton completed the mercury monitoring at the selected pits in 2016. Once the results and conclusions have been prepared by Dr. Slotton, the operators will report the results with their annual compliance reports due in November. Due to the longstanding nature of this issue and the agreed upon remedy, this Condition of Approval/Mitigation Measure is categorized as “In-Compliance (in-progress)” for each affected operation, as designated on the Conditions of Approval Compliance Summary Table in Attachment D.
Overview of Cache Creek Area Plan Update
The Cache Creek Area Plan (CCAP) is based on the concept of adaptive management. The purpose of the 10-year update is to allow for amendment of the CCAP, as necessary, based on trend analysis in three primary areas: (1) Changes in Creek Condition; (2) New regulatory requirements; and (3) Analysis of collected data. The OCMP, CCRMP, various implementing ordinances, and the mining permit conditions of approval all require regularly conducted modeling, monitoring, surveying, and reporting. The resulting information is to be analyzed for patterns and fed back into the program for the purpose of program updates/modification, if appropriate, when the County conducts regularly required program updates. The County is required to update the CCAP, Including the CCRMP and the OCMP, every ten years. This coincides with similar requirements to conduct interim permit reviews for each of the off-channel mining permits and interim reviews of the mining fees, which will be folded into the CCAP update. Staff is immersed in the update process, with the goal of presenting a finished product in early 2017.
Appeals
Pursuant to Sections 10-4.703 and 10-4.1003 of the OCSMO, any person who is dissatisfied with the decisions of this Planning Commission on these matters may appeal to the Board of Supervisors by filing with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within fifteen (15) days from the date of the action. A written notice of appeal specifying the grounds for appeal and an appeal fee immediately payable to the Clerk of the Board must be submitted at the time of filing. The Board of Supervisors may sustain, modify, or overrule this decision.
|