RECLAMATION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A reclamation plan is an essential feature of the overall mining project plan and is a requirement of the CBJ Large Mine Permit. According to the CBJ Mining Ordinance (49.65.135(a)), the CBJ shall require that:

• "Reclamation of the affected surface be in accordance with the approved reclamation plan of the operator;"

Also, CBJ 49.65.135(b) requires that:

• "Reclamation of all affected surfaces shall be completed as soon as is reasonable after affected surface areas are no longer being used in exploration and mining operations. Reclamation shall include the following: cleanup and disposal of dangerous, hazardous or toxic materials; regrading of steep slopes of unconsolidated material to create a stable slope; backfilling underground shafts and tunnels to the extent appropriate pillaring or other support to prevent subsidence or sloughing; plugging or sealing of abandoned shafts, tunnels, adits or other openings; adequate steps to control or avoid soil erosion or wind erosion; control of water runoff; revegetation of tailings and affected surface areas with plant materials that are capable of self-regeneration without continued dependence on irrigation and equipment where appropriate; rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat; and any other conditions imposed by the commission. Subsequent to the issuance of a permit or the grant of authority under an exploration notice, the operator's compliance shall be measured against the requirements contained in that permit or the conditions of the exploration notice and the operator's plans submitted with the permit application or the notice."

Thus, the Mining Ordinance requires approval of a reclamation plan, and specifies the requirements of that reclamation plan.

Also, the Mining Ordinance (CBJ 49.65.140 (a)) requires a financial warranty to:

• "protect the... reclamation requirements of the city and borough, or that, if the operator does not carry out those obligations, there will be sufficient funds available to the city and borough to enable it to complete the necessary work, taking into account the financial warranties which the operator must submit to other agencies."

Finally, the Mining Ordinance (CBJ 49.65.145(d)) requires that at the end of a temporary mine closure, or:

• "At the conclusion of inactive status, the operator shall either resume operations or commence final reclamation in accordance with its plans."

This staff report examines the Reclamation Plan for content and approvability. In reviewing and evaluating the reclamation plan submitted by the applicant, the CBJ staff applied the following general criteria:

• o The plan must be comprehensive, covering all areas affected by mining and processing activities.
  

  o There must be firm commitments to accomplish reclamation in a timely manner.
  

  o The reclamation strategy must be flexible and adaptable to various stages of mine development.
  

  o The proposed techniques must be of proven efficacy in Southeast Alaska.
  

  o The reclaimed site should be self-sustaining, requiring little or no maintenance.
  

  o The post-reclamation site must endure for centuries all reasonably anticipated natural disturbances free of adverse environmental impacts.

In addition to these general criteria, several specific performance criteria were used:

• o The mine tailings must be permanently contained.
  

  o The mine tailings must be shielded from erosion by water and wind.
  

  o Mine openings must be sealed in the interests of safety, but the mine must be allowed to drain freely as long as it meets Alaska Water Quality Standards.
  

  o Visual impacts of the mining activity, especially facilities such as the dry tailings facility that are visible from Lynn Canal, must be addressed during, as well as after, mining operations.
  

  o The facilities shall be designed such that 10 years after closure there will be either no need for further maintenance, or only a low level of maintenance that can be paid for reliably by a permanent funding source established for that purpose.

This staff report examines the proposed reclamation activities, post-reclamation maintenance and monitoring, financial warranty requirements and release criteria, and administrative issues. The staff report on Visual Resources recommends permit conditions that address interim and final reclamation activities to minimize visual impacts of the project. The staff report on Financial Warranty considers in detail the specific costs of reclamation.

ANALYSIS

A Reclamation Plan was submitted for CBJ review in January 1997 Following release of the Final SEIS, the applicant revised the Reclamation Plan (August 1997) to correspond with the preferred Alternative D. Discussions and correspondence about the reclamation plan between the applicant, and CBJ staff, and other agencies provided additional information which is incorporated into the revised Reclamation Plan and this staff analysis. The plan covers a broad range of topics including interim and final reclamation, post reclamation maintenance, warranty release criteria, and, to some extent, administrative issues.

The Kensington mine is projected to disturb about 269 acres (see attached Table 1.2; Reclamation Plan; August 1997). The project changes resulting from preferred Alternative D in the Final SEIS yield an additional 18 acres of surface disturbance, primarily at the till borrow pit. The Reclamation plan also describes the array of steps to be taken to reclaim the various components of the mine site.

Interim Reclamation Issues

Two general categories of interim reclamation are described in the plan: 1) concurrent reclamation that minimizes the extent of site disturbance by continually reclaiming disturbed sites as soon after the disturbance as practical, and 2) temporary mine shut-down reclamation that keeps up routine erosion control and prevention activities during a temporary cessation of mine production.

Concurrent reclamation is featured in the routine development and operation of the dry tailings facility (DTF) and the borrow pits. This activity is similar to what is done in final reclamation, consisting of grading, top soiling and seeding each area of disturbed ground as soon as it is no longer required for production purposes. For instance, borrow areas will be reclaimed as soon as their gravel resources are exhausted, with regrading occurring within one year of completed use and subsequent revegetation. Individual DTF cells will be reclaimed as they reach capacity. Initial revegetation will focus on grasses for stabilization that then allows for succession of native plants, alder, spruce, and hemlock. The applicant proposes to evaluate the revegetation success -- particularly the regenerating potential of native plant species -- during DTF concurrent reclamation through the use of test plots. Modifications can be made to the depth of growth media, plant species, seed mixtures, soil amendments and fertilizer, based on test results and in consultation with the regulatory agencies. Additional test plots will evaluate revegetation strategies for other reclaimed habitat types at the mine site.

The cost of performing concurrent reclamation is borne by the operating budgets for gravel till extraction and tailings disposal. One practical effect of concurrent reclamation is to limit the amount of total site area in a disturbed and unreclaimed state at any one time, thereby limiting the amount of reclamation bonding that must be maintained.

The plan also anticipates interim reclamation measures that would be in effect up to three years in the event mining operations are suspended due to adverse economic conditions -- a common occurrence in the mining industry. It is seldom possible to forecast the duration of such a shut-down at the beginning. It could be a matter of a few weeks or months, or it could be many years (50-plus in the case of the AJ Mine) before mining resumes. Not knowing how long the period of inactivity will last makes it difficult to tailor interim reclamation measures to the occasion at hand.

The general approach proposed for reclamation during shut-down periods is the same as the program of continuing maintenance ongoing for the operating life of the mine. Activities such as mothballing equipment and mounting a watchman operation may also be involved, but otherwise the intent of the reclamation plan is to maintain the site and facilities in the same fashion as during normal mine operation. The main activities are keeping drainage structures clear and inhibiting erosion of exposed soils with annual seeding. Monitoring of air and water quality for compliance with environmental requirements would continue.

Final Reclamation

According to the Reclamation Plan (August 1997), interim reclamation activities would be limited in duration to a maximum three-year production shutdown. Final reclamation would begin at the end of such a shutdown unless the regulatory agencies grant an extension. The goal of final reclamation is to return all disturbed areas of the site to a stable and productive condition. This includes minimizing visual impacts of the project while protecting long-term land and water resources and reestablishing, to the extent feasible, the wildland character of the site. The Modified Landscape land use designation under the revised Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan calls for reclaiming the inland area of the major mine facilities such as the borrow pits, process area, and DTF to achieve a Modification visual quality objective (i.e., alterations visually dominate but are compatible with natural surroundings). The shoreline would be restored to a Partial Retention visual quality objective of alterations which are visually subordinate to the natural surroundings. See the staff report on Visual Resources for further discussion of the visual quality objectives with reclamation.

Specific reclamation tasks include facility shutdown and decommissioning, demolition and removal of surface facilities, portal closure, stream channel stabilization, fill placement and grading, growth medium placement, revegetation and monitoring. The plan deals with the removal of buildings and other surface facilities including roads in a fairly straightforward fashion. Superstructures and equipment will be removed from the site, concrete foundations will be broken up and buried, and disturbed areas will be regraded to enhance drainage and slope stability and revegetated. Diverted streams will be returned to their natural channels. According to the plan, only the existing camp buildings, which are located on patented land near the beach, will remain after mine closure.

The reclamation plan anticipates that land subsidence will not reach the ground surface as the result of ore extraction under the current mining plan. If this is the case, the amount of water draining out of the mine should be modest, although at times during the winter it may comprise the bulk of surface flows in Sherman Creek. However, should subsidence occur, mine drainage will become more problematical with implications for the portal closure phase of reclamation. The staff report on Subsidence discusses this contingency in some detail.

The revised Reclamation Plan (August 1997) identifies a series of objectives to be achieved with reclamation, ranging from the stabilization of steep slopes and protection of surficial soil materials to establishment of self-sustaining vegetation and pre-mining recreational uses. The plan also presents priorities among the objectives for reclaiming specific project components, based on agency and applicant discussions. This helps to clarify the primary focus intended for particular reclamation activities, now and in the future.

A major stated goal of the reclamation plan is to restore the area to pre-mine wildlife habitat capability. This does not necessarily mean that the area will be restored to the exact pre-mine successional communities. The surface revegetation strategy described in the reclamation plan would initially establish grasses by hydroseeding. In this initial stage, reclamation is focused on stabilization of slopes and devegetated areas to allow for natural successional plant communities. As noted earlier, throughout the life of the project, the applicant will maintain test plots at the mine site. This will establish the most appropriate vegetation mix to re-establish the different habitat types in this area.

Viewed from Lynn Canal, the most visible aspect of the Kensington mine would be the dry tailings facility, which, when fully developed, will present a large smooth facade contrasting sharply with the surrounding forest. As part of both concurrent and final reclamation, the plan calls for continuously grading, top soiling and revegetating the sloping sides of the dry tailings facility as each cell is constructed. The overall intent of this program is to reduce to a minimum (although it will not eliminate) the visual contrast between the dry tailings facility and the surrounding terrain.

The U.S. Forest Service, in the Final SEIS (1997) calls for at least 1 foot depth in growth media at reclaimed sites and identifies grass seeds for revegetation known to be successful in Southeast Alaska. The Final SEIS also calls for 75 percent live cover and meeting Alaska water quality standards as the set of performance standards by which the success of the surface restoration will be measured. These standards will become part of the reclamation plan prior to U.S. Forest Service approval of the final Plan of Operations Also, these standards can be used to measure the operator's compliance as specified in CBJ Mining Ordinance 49.65.135(b), and will serve as criteria for release of a financial warranty for reclamation.

Wetland areas where borrows occur will be restored in terraces to function as a combination of wet soils and open waters throughout most of the year. The attached cross section (Figure 4-14; Section 404 permit application) shows a general contour for one of these borrow areas.

During mine reclamation the three bridges placed across Upper Sherman and Ivanhoe Creeks will be removed and the areas disturbed by bridge abutments recontoured with the surrounding topography to blend with natural shapes. The Reclamation Plan then calls for rip rap along the stream channel segments for stabilization. A secondary reclamation objective identified in the Reclamation Plan is to protect surface water quality and reestablish fish habitat in these reclaimed areas.

As discussed by the agencies and applicant, staff believes that some flexibility is needed in the reclamation plan to consider the use of bioengineering techniques or woody debris -- along with rip rap -- as a way to protect fish habitat in the stream. This approach would be consistent with the Juneau Coastal Management Program policies on management of river habitat (CBJ 49.70.950(c)(7). Then-current bioengineering techniques could be considered during reclamation since additional Title 16 Fish Habitat permits would be required from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game prior to implementation of the Reclamation Plan.

During mine operations, Ophir Creek will be diverted into Ivanhoe Creek. This diversion is temporary, and Coeur does not propose to develop fish habitat in the diversion. Upon completion of mining and milling activities, the creek will be returned to its natural channel which will require some reconstruction (Reclamation Plan, page 4-4). The diversion will be regraded to match the natural topography to promote runoff in the original drainage. As in the prior paragraph, staff recommends that then-current bioengineered stabilization be considered as part of the rehabilitation design to provide the requisite stabilization while providing natural vegetation and fish habitat.

Post-Reclamation Maintenance Requirements

Ideally, a properly designed and executed reclamation plan will leave the mine site in a condition requiring no continuing, long-term maintenance to achieve an enduring, high-quality environment. In the plan, Coeur commits to post-closure maintenance during reclamation of the site. Also, there is a provision for a period of monitoring the effects of the reclamation program until all requirements for release of the financial warranty have been satisfied. Meeting the criteria for warranty release, by definition, means that site reclamation has been successful and no further maintenance is required. Until warranty release occurs, Coeur will perform necessary maintenance, and implicit in this is the commitment to return to the site to correct any deficiencies.

Administrative Issues

A reclamation plan should form the basis for a binding agreement -- a contractual obligation -- between the applicant and the CBJ that results in a level of site restoration and reclamation satisfactory to the CBJ. In fulfilling this requirement, it is also useful to clearly identify the formal procedures by which the scope and schedule of reclamation is decided, the responsible parties, the source of funding, and all other administrative matters bearing on the execution of the reclamation program. Several of these matters are not addressed in the plan in detail, but can be covered as conditions in CBJ's large mine permit or are provided for in the CBJ Mining Ordinance. While not a legal requirement under the CBJ Mining Ordinance, CBJ also intends to work with the U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and other appropriate agencies to negotiate a multi-agency Memorandum of Agreement to address coordination of procedural issues of mutual interest with respect to Kensington mine reclamation. Procedural issues that could be addressed in a MOA include: inspections, annual reporting, coordinated review of reclamation plan amendments, reclamation cost estimating and verification, annual review of the financial warranty, non-compliance, and criteria and procedures for release of a financial warranty.

Reclamation Costs and Financial Warranty

Estimates of the costs of performing various reclamation activities are presented in the reclamation plan. The plan estimates the final site reclamation cost, based on 1996 Davis-Bacon wages, in a range from a low of about $3.5 million, after initial construction but before production, to a high of about $4.9 million, as the mine nears the end of its design life. At its peak, the reclamation cost is equivalent to about $18,300 per acre of disturbed ground.

These estimates include costs for reclamation monitoring of revegetation, surface water quality, and hydrocarbon testing over a five-year period. For planning purposes, the Reclamation Plan generally identifies a five-year period following reclamation by which time warranty release criteria are assumed to be met. It should be recognized that this post-reclamation period may be shortened or extended, depending upon the success of reclamation activities and for specific project components. The aforementioned release criteria of 75 percent live self-sustaining vegetation cover and the site meeting Alaska's Water Quality Standards will determine when reclamation goals have been satisfied and reclamation monitoring would be terminated. As noted previously, the cost of post-closure, reclamation-stage maintenance work would be borne by Coeur.

The Reclamation Plan estimates do not include the costs for permit-specific, long-term monitoring of, for example, the Dry Tailings Facility as may be required by ADEC in the State solid waste disposal permit. The staff report on Solid Waste notes that ADEC has required 30-year post closure monitoring (with bonding to cover monitoring costs) for tailings structures at the Fort Knox and Illinois Creek mines in Interior Alaska.

In general, unit costs used in the estimate are realistic and all major components of reclamation cost have been taken into account. Costs reflect the payment of "Davis-Bacon" scale wages as would be the case with governmental involvement in reclaiming an abandoned project site. Adequate provision is made for incidental project management and inspection, and there is a project continency fund as well.

As part of the previously mentioned multi-agency Memorandum of Agreement, the agencies and applicant have expressed interest in achieving a single financial warranty to meet all reclamation responsibilities. In the interim until such a MOA can be negotiated, CBJ will require the applicant to establish a financial warranty to cover reclamation costs for initial construction. The staff report on Financial Warranty discusses this reclamation warranty and recommends a dollar amount and procedure for verifying cost estimates in the future at the time of warranty renewal.

STAFF FINDINGS

• 1. Is the large mine permit application complete with respect to reclamation?

  (CBJ 49.15.330(e)(1)(B))
  

  Yes. The revisions in the Reclamation Plan (August 1997) provide sufficient information for staff review and recommendation.
  

  2. Will the reclamation aspect of the proposed development endanger the public health or safety? (CBJ 49.15.330 (f)(1))
  

  No. The Reclamation Plan (August 1997) calls for removal of mine buildings and plugging the mine portals as long-term measures to protect public safety. Besides the remote location of the mine site, the permit condition that the reclaimed mine site meet Alaska Water Quality standards ensures that the proposed project will not endanger public health.
  

  3. What will be the effect of reclamation of the project site on the value of property in the neighboring area? Will reclamation of the project site be in harmony with the neighboring area? (CBJ 49.15.330 (f)(2))
  

  In general, the reclamation is likely to have a positive effect on neighboring property as the reclaimed mine site reverts to a more natural appearance in keeping with the surrounding area. Revegetation test plots during the life of the mine will help tailor mine reclamation activities to the specific habitats found at the Kensington mine site. A condition requiring 75 percent live cover of self-sustaining vegetation prior to release of a financial warranty helps ensure that the project site will be adequately reclaimed and will be in close harmony with the neighboring area. Also, the Modified Landscape land use designation under the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, which is applicable to the reclaimed mine site, strives for restoration so that the site is visually compatible with the natural surroundings.
  

  4. Does the city and borough approve of the operator's reclamation plan? Does the reclamation plan meet CBJ requirements? (CBJ 49.65.135(a)(6) and (b))
  

  With the conditions of the large mine permit, the Reclamation Plan (August 1997) meets CBJ requirements. Staff recommends approval.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

In addition to recommendations in the staff reports on Financial Warranty and Visual Resources, staff recommends that the following conditions be included in the large mine permit:

• 1. As part of the annual progress report to the department required under CBJ 49.65.150, the operator shall identify the past year's reclamation and specific plans for reclamation activities in the ensuing year. The operator shall also estimate the amount of reclaimed acreage during the past year and associated reclamation costs. Similarly, the operator shall estimate the amount of acreage to be disturbed in the ensuing year and anticipated costs of reclamation. The estimated acreage and reclamation costs shall be provided for purposes of the annual review of the financial warranty in accordance with CBJ 49.65.140(f).
  

  2. The operator shall notify the department of proposed changes in mine operations that may affect the total amount of surface area disturbed or the reclamation in the approved Reclamation Plan in accordance with CBJ 49.65.155. To the extent possible, such notification will accompany the annual progress report submitted to the department.
  

  3. In the annual progress report to the department, the operator shall provide data and analysis about the results of any revegetation test plots and shall describe how successful test results could be incorporated into revegetation practices and amendments to the approved Reclamation Plan. The operator shall also report and analyze water quality monitoring data from reclaimed sites in the annual progress report.
  

  4. To be considered successful and prior to final release of the financial warranty by the department, mine reclamation shall meet the requirements of CBJ 49.65.135(b), 49.65.140(a) and other conditions of the large mine permit. Reclaimed sites shall also support 75 percent live, self-sustaining vegetative cover where revegetation has been undertaken, and runoff from reclaimed sites shall meet Alaska Water Quality Standards.
  

  5. Reclamation of streams and the Ophir Creek diversion channel shall include consideration of bioengineering techniques to protect fish habitat in addition to the placement of rip rap to meet the primary reclamation objective of stabilization.
  

  6. Topsoil or growth media shall be applied over regraded areas to a minimum depth of one foot, subject to modification based on the results of site-specific revegetation test plots identified in Permit Condition #3 above.

Return to Kensington Mine Review Page
Return to the Capital City Home Page

Our URL is http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/cdd/Kensingt.htm