Archive for the 'Gravel Mining Impacts' Category

Want Fish? Workshop on Instream Flows–AB 2121

Published
by
Larry
on August 4, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Want Fish?

The State Water Resources Control Board next workshops on maintaining instream flows, draft policies for implementing AB2121 are here.

Do not let this SWRCB public workshop on minimum instream flow draft policies (AB2121) be dominated by a massive turnout by the Farm Bureau, large water sellers, and Real Estate developers, as in the last few workshops. SWRCB Board Members and staff need to hear from the rest of our communities: fisheries, environmental, water quality, good government, land use, greenbelt and open space, conscientious farmers and land stewards, hydrologists, groundwater, and taxpayers who want protection of our public trust resources for the next 10 generations.

*SWRCB workshop on AB2121 Instream Flow draft policies*

Tues 8/5, 1-5pm, Ukiah Valley Conf. Center Wed. 8/6, 1-5pm, Merlo Theater, Wells Fargo Center, Santa Rosa

The comment letters are available for viewing on the State Water NOTE: THE REGIONAL BOARD, CAG, PATRICK HIGGINS AND SONOMA COUNTY WATER COALITION HAVE GOOD Board’s website at:/ COMMENTS ON FILE

http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs_publiccomment.html
.

Please tell them:- Talking Points Streams are in terrible shape - lower rainfall and unlawful diversion are the problem - the salmon fishery is on the ropes

Legal Framework (AB 2121 - State Water Code ) - puts responsibility on the State Water Board to solve the problem

The State Board must develop policy to support minimum by-pass flows to support fish survival

No new instream diversion should be permitted that would diminish adequate flows for fish survival

Existing illegal diversions and instream impoundments should be curtailed/removed

RECOMMENDATIONS - SHORT LIST

Apart from suggestions and discussion from above, the following summarized suggestions are made:

Proposed policy needs to be reworked to make it more understandable and enforceable

Adhering to the original Joint CDFG/NMFS Guidelines might simplify policy and related implications.

All origins of water use should be considered in Watershed Analysis and setting diversion limitations.

Watershed Analysis and condition setting for permits and license shall be consistent with all State Code (including CEQA, Water Code, and CDFG 1600 permitting) - this includes group actions.

All unauthorized onstream dams and storage facilities that block fish habitat shall be considered for removal on a prioritized basis.

Season of Diversion should be no greater than January through March.

Funding to support permitting and monitoring programs shall be developed through permit fee schedules.

A functional enforcement system shall be developed and employed.

Alan Levine

Letter to Editor Regarding Syar’s Permit Extension

Published
by
Larry
on July 31, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

FYI,

Mining moonscape

EDITOR: It’s wonderful to see The Press Democrat editorial get it right on
an important Russian River issue (”Flashback”).

Gravel mining below Healdsburg has removed millions of tons of gravel from
the riparian corridor. Much of the middle reach of the river beyond a thin
veil of vegetation has been reduced to virtually a moonscape. If you have
the pleasure of seeing this wonderful stretch of river, walk beyond the
10-foot fringe of trees and take a look at the mess gravel mining has left
us.

The gravel remaining filters our drinking water, which is pumped from the
river not far downstream. The destruction of our aquifer, woodland and
riparian habitat was a bad idea decades ago and a worse one today,
considering the increasing scarcity of quality water, not to mention
habitat. Should our Board of Supervisors have a problem ending gravel
mining on the river at the Aug. 19 hearing, one must question the
integrity of the decision-making process.

The passage of the Aggregate Management Plan gave Syar Industries more
than 10 years notice. The board should be having hearings to determine how
Syar is going to restore the moonscape it has left us in the middle reach
of the Russian River.

DAVID HERR

–Larry

3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium

Published
by
Larry
on July 8, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Hello,
SRF has two exciting events this summer: the 3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium and the 11th Annual Coho Confab. I have pasted our event announcements below. Please feel free - even encouraged! - to share these PSAs with your co-workers, constituents, list-serves, Events calendars, or other organizations you think might find these events useful and enjoyable.

Thank you for your help in spreading the word!

3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium
July 10-12, Nevada City, CA

The Salmonid Restoration Federation’s 3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium will be held in Nevada City on July 10 followed by field tours on the Yuba River and Butte Creek on July 11 & 12. Symposium speakers include UC Davis Fisheries Professor Peter Moyle who will address Ecological Perspectives on Spring-run Chinook salmon. Session topics will highlight status of populations and specific recovery opportunities for Central Valley Rivers, and recovery challenges including FERC relicensing, climate change, and resurrecting the Klamath run. Afternoon panels will representatives from DFG, NOAA Fisheries, SYRCL, State Water Board and Conservation Groups will discuss recovery through habitat expansion, water supply, and water quality improvements. Field tours will include a Yuba River float, site visits to the Bear-River Feather Set-back Project by way of the Lower Yuba, a Restoration thru Relicensing Driving Tour, Snorkeling Investigations of the South Yuba River, and a Butte Creek tour of Spring-run Fish Populations. Symposium and field tour costs are $105-135 depending on advanced registration which closes on June 15. To access the registration form, please go to: http://calsalmon.org/pdf/RegForm_8X11_050808_hi%20res.pdf

11th Annual Coho Confab
September 26-28 on the Smith River

SRF, Trees Foundation, Smith River Advisory Council, and the Smith River Alliance will host the 11th Annual Coho Confab featuring tours of Mill Creek restoration projects, erosion control and fish passage projects, underwater fish identification, macro-invertebrate sampling, networking, great music and food. Fee $100-125 includes all food and lodging. Limited scholarships and work trade positions are available.

For more info, please call 707 923-7501 or visit the SRF web site.

I hope you are having a great Spring!
Heather Reese
Project Coordinator
Salmonid Restoration Federation
PO Box 784
Redway, California 95560
(707) 923-7501
heather@calsalmon.org

Appeal for Action on Syar Mining Hearing–July 8th at 2:10 pm

Published
by
Larry
on July 4, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Rescheduled Syar Phase VI Pit Mining hearing July 8th - 2:10pm**

Please help defend one of the biggest victories for the River that our
Supervisors are prepared to reverse - the 10-year limit of Open Pit strip
mining of our aquifer!

Urge the Supervisors to Vote NO on the permit and uphold the 10-year limit
to protect our aquifer and farmland!
This project, if approved, will open the door to continued mining beyond
this permit by breaking the ARM plan regulation that all open pit mining
will end in 2006, increase greenhouse gas emissions, expose our community
and wildlife to toxic levels of Mercury for gravel the market is already
well supplied with.

Please write a letter or attend the hearing on July 8th at 2:10pm!

For US post letters use the following address and subject line:

Chairman Kerns and Members of the Board
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
575 Administration Drive, Suite 100A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

RE: July 8, 2008 - Syar Phase VI Hearing

For E-mail letters please use the following addresses and subject line:

mkerns@sonoma-county.org
vbrown@sonoma-county.org
tsmith@sonoma-county.org
pkelley@sonoma-county.org
mreilly@sonoma-county.org
CC: KELLISON@sonoma-county.org
CSEPPELE@sonoma-county.org

Subject line: July 8, 2008 - Syar Phase VI Hearing PLP05-0108

POINTS TO MAKE TO SONOMA CO SUPERVISORS

The 10-year limit was strict mitigation and can’t be undone
The April 2006 phase-out of open pit mining was a HUGE compromise by
conservation community and was mitigation in recognition of the widely
recognized environmental degradation to our floodplains, aquifer and
permanent loss of valuable farmland. The 1-year limit was mitigation for
the cumulative impacts from Open Pit mining and to continue beyond 10
years requires new mitigation and the EIR has no mitigation for the
cumulative impact from continued mining.

Water is more valuable than gravel to our community
Open Pit mining permanently destroys a portion of the Middle Reach zone of
the Santa Rosa aquifer for a year or two of gravel supply compromising
future sustainable water sources the county will require as our population
grows.

Syar’s Air Quality Study is Flawed and will lead to unacceptable cancer
risks from Equipment emissions
A June 2008 study by Atmospheric Dynamics shows that Syar’s reports
understated the cancer risks by not accounting for particulate emissions
by using outdated information on particulates, properly age equipment by
assuming all equipment was brand new with modern emission controls and by
not accounting for higher emissions from off-road equipment. The
independent report shows that the real cancer risk is 2-3 times higher
than Syar’s reports and push the risk above legal thresholds.

Continued Open Pit mining exposes our community and wildlife to high
levels of Mercury

Syar’s own data shows their process water slurry to contain toxic levels
of Mercury. Syar and other mining operations have dumped this toxic stew
into the former mining pits contaminating them with mercury. The Syar
processing plant located next to the River and the Phase VI pit will end
up with toxic levels of mercury if Phase VI is allowed to proceed. Syar’s
testing data from groundwater monitoring wells and former pits has a
detection limit 20 times the significant threshold levels set by the
USEPA, the Clean Water Act and Proposition 65.
Due to the failure to test for Mercury at levels required by the USEPA,
the FEIR should NOT be approved until Mercury testing is performed at
levels consistent with the law.

Sonoma County already has adequate gravel supplies
There is no public need served as imported gravel is able to supply entire
Sonoma market with lower Greenhouse gas emissions and much lower
environmental impact to source areas and no sacrifice of farmlands.

Most gravel use is NOT in north county
The EIR completely omits the existing Northern Sonoma County gravel
sources from bar skimming in claiming a "need" for local high quality
aggregate. The truth is that the majority of gravel use is easily served
by imported sources in Petaluma. This is demonstrated via a 2003 Whitlock
& Weinberger Transportation traffic study.

Thank You for opposing the Syar permit and protecting our River and
groundwaters!

**- Since the June 10th hearing was a last minute cancellation and many
showed up so if you want to confirm the hearing before you drive over you
can call our office at 433-1958 or the Clerk of the Board at 565-2241 to
confirm the hearing time after 10am on July 8th! We do not believe this
hearing will be postponed but check-in to be sure!

—————————
Don McEnhill
Russian Riverkeeper
PO Box 1335
Healdsburg, CA 95448
ph: 707-433-1958
fx: 707-433-1989
cel: 707-217-4762
www.russianriverkeeper.org

Regarding the Syar Gravel Permit Extension

Published
by
Larry
on July 4, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 1 Comment

(Note: The decision on Syar’s permit extension before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on June 10 was postponed until Tuesday, June 8, at 2:10 pm.)

It will be very interesting to see today how the Board of Supervisors addresses the issues around the requested Syar gravel mining extension as it relates to water supply and filtration.

In conversation yesterday evening with Pam Jeane (SCWA Asst. Managing Engineer) and their fisheries biologist (David Manning) in their Guerneville SCWA public meeting on water shortages, the question came up of whether SCWA would be providing comments to the Supervisors on the impacts of gravel mining on water supply. They stated explicitly that they have not been asked to do so by their boss(es), and so would not be providing any comments.

This is very odd and unfortunate, since it is a hydrological and geological reality that the gravels and sands of a river aquifer are porous. In the Russian River, these 25-40% voids within the gravel bed are filled with water, naturally and for free, every winter. This is a huge reservoir within the gravel bed aquifer of the Russian River.

So, removal of a cubic yard of gravel to aggregate mining removes approximately ~1/3 cu. yd. (about 9 cu. ft, or 68 gallons) of water stored within that gravel and sand. Gravel mining leads directly to lessened water stored within the aquifer, and directly results in lower flows within the river, as those stored waters are slowly released during the dry months as the “base flow” of the river. This is a very significant part of our water supply (and critical fish habitat) during the dry months, as well as for all the other users who are drafting water from the river for agriculture and municipal uses and for swimming and boating. This base flow is supplemented by the releases from Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino to meet the state mandated minimum flows for fish and recreation. So, the less water stored within the aquifer, the more water has to be released from the reservoirs to maintain the flows. This is all compounded by the overdrafting of the river (”over-allocation”) during the summer, with more water taken out of the river than naturally is flowing in it.

(For literally a ‘text book’ examples, discussing the Russian River and other western rivers, see:
Jeffrey Mount [Chair, Geology Dept, UCD], California Rivers and Streams, the conflict between fluvial process and land use, UC Press, 1995, Chapter 11, Mining and the Rivers of California; also,
Thomas Dunne and Luna Leopold, Water in Environmental Planning, W.H.Freeman and Co, 1978, Groundwater storage, p.198+ )

As you well know, in addition, the state Dept. of Health 1949 permit for SCWA’s pumping of water from the river without any filtration (and no treatment required except chlorination for possible in-pipe contamination) is premised on the spectacular abilities of our aquifer to filter our water for cleanliness.

It is very unfortunate that the institutional conflicts between governance roles of the Sonoma Co. Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors SCWA leaves this critical information off the table for their informed consideration of river gravel mining. What we need is for the Board of Directors to instruct their senior staff to provide this kind of data to the Board of Supervisors.

Any help you can provide to get this done would be most welcome.

Thanks for your ear on this. If you’d like to discuss these issues further, please let me know - I’d be happy to sit down with you.

David

Syar Permit Hearing Re-scheduled July 8 at 2:10 pm

Published
by
Larry
on June 10, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Please note the Syar permit hearing is scheduled for 2:10 PM on July 8.
Cheers,
Paula

“The Syar Phase 6 terrace pit hearing has been continued by the
Board of Supervisors to July 8th at 2:10pm.”

Ken Ellison
Supervising Planner
County of Sonoma

The True Cost of Gravel Mining in the Russian River

Published
by
admin
on June 7, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts and Streams and Wetlands
. 1 Comment

How the public foots the bill, while miners truck out the profits.

Geyserville Bridge 2006

[Editor's Note: Syar Industries, Inc. is requesting a permit for continued gravel mining in the Russian River from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, June 10, at 2:30 pm. The permit was not approved by the Planning Commission in April but this action may be overturned by the Supervisors. Thanks to the Russian Riverkeeper for providing information on the background and the true impacts of gravel mining in the river.]

Gravel Mining competes with a healthy sustainable watershed, you can import gravel but you can’t import a healthy fishery or plentiful and clean water supplies for our future!

What are the Impacts? In simple terms the largest impact from gravel mining is erosion. When material is removed from a river system it is replaced from increased erosion upstream and downstream. Gravel mining has lead to or increased impacts that damage public trust resources, but we pay for many of these impacts.

Continue reading ‘The True Cost of Gravel Mining in the Russian River’

End Gravel Mining in Russian River on June 10, 2:30 pm

Published
by
Larry
on June 6, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 1 Comment

Help to put an end to Gravel Mining in the Russian River!

Help defend one of the biggest victories for the River that our Supervisors are prepared to reverse - the 10-year limit of Open Pit strip mining of our aquifer!

Urge the Supervisors to deny the permit and uphold the 10-year limit to protect our aquifer and farmland!

This project will open the door to continued mining beyond this permit by breaking the ARM plan regulation that all open pit mining would end in 2006, increase greenhouse gas emissions, expose our community and wildlife to toxic levels of Mercury for gravel the market is already well supplied with.

Please write a letter or attend the hearing on June 10th at 2:30pm!

For US post letters use the following address and subject line:
Chairman Kerns and Members of the Board
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
575 Administration Drive, Suite 100A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
RE: June 10, 2008 - Syar Phase VI Hearing

For E-mail letters please use the following addresses and subject line:
mkerns@sonoma-county.org
vbrown@sonoma-county.org
tsmith@sonoma-county.org
pkelley@sonoma-county.org
mreilly@sonoma-county.org
CC: KELLISON@sonoma-county.org
Subject line: June 10, 2008 - Syar Phase VI Hearing

POINTS TO MAKE TO SONOMA CO SUPERVISORS

• The 10-year limit was strict mitigation and can’t be undone

• The April 2006 phase-out of open pit mining was a HUGE compromise by conservation community and was mitigation in recognition of the widely recognized environmental degradation to our floodplains, aquifer and permanent loss of valuable farmland. The 1-year limit was mitigation for the cumulative impacts from Open Pit mining and to continue beyond 10 years requires new mitigation and the EIR has no mitigation for the cumulative impact from continued mining.

• Water is more valuable than gravel to our community

• Open Pit mining permanently destroys a portion of the Middle Reach zone of the Santa Rosa aquifer for a year or two of gravel supply compromising future sustainable water sources the county will require as our population grows.

• Continued Open Pit mining exposes our community and wildlife to high levels of Mercury

• Syar’s own data shows their process water slurry to contain toxic levels of Mercury. After Syar was ordered to stop discharging the mercury laden water into former open pit mines, they are now de-watering the solids from the slurry and using it as top-soil to be sold or spread on vineyards over our aquifer. The Mercury is still there as it binds to sediment not water but the Syar FEIR completely avoids analyzing what happened to the Mercury when the process water slurry is dried out. The soil has to be tested for Mercury before the FEIR can claim that no impact exisits and they have failed to do testing.
The FIER fails to identify or address the impact from mining causing the hyper-concentration of existing Mercury in the floodplain deposits to toxic levels and exposing our water, wildlife and human population to the Mercury.

• Sonoma County already has adequate gravel supplies

• There is no public need served as imported gravel is able to supply entire Sonoma market with lower Greenhouse gas emissions and much lower environmental impact to source areas and no sacrifice of farmlands.

• Most gravel use is NOT in north county

• The EIR completely omits the existing Northern Sonoma County gravel sources from bar skimming in claiming a “need” for local high quality aggregate. The truth is that the majority of gravel use is easily served by imported sources in Petaluma.

Applying the ‘Water Framework Directive’ to RR Watershed

Published
by
Larry
on May 19, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Conservation, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

I thought you might appreciate this. The DWR has been very supportive of the Russian River Watershed Council, and citing the European “Water Framework Directive” is an interesting approach.

Have a wonderful spring weekend,
Rue

—————
Rue,
In case you haven’t seen this, a March 2008 UCB paper on applying the European ‘Water Framework Directive’ watershed management approach to the Russian River watershed. It cites RRWC & SCWA information.

http://repositories.cdlib.org/wrc/contributions/208/

regards,
Pierre
J. Pierre Stephens
Water Supply Evaluations Section Chief
Division of Planning and Local Assistance, Central District
California Department of Water Resources

Hearing for Syar’s Application for Instream Mining Extension

Published
by
Larry
on April 2, 2008
in Gravel Mining Impacts and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Attend the hearing for Syar’s attempt to extend the ARM plan permit for instream mining in the Russian River

When: Thursday, April 3, at 1 pm

Where: PRMD Hearing Room, 2550 Ventura Ave. in Santa Rosa

If Sonoma County intends to extend the ARM Plan for terrace mining on the Russian River (This plan was approved for a limited period of time based on a historic EIR - where circumstances and science have changed), Interested Parties should inform the County that this is a project, that the old EIR is out of date and a Supplementary EIR is mandated - under CEQA.

Appurtenant to the Supplementary EIR, responsible agency participation should take place - Including:
Biologic Opinion from the ACE and NMFS

DFG environmental assessment and mitigations - 1600 permitting

Regional Board participation.

Alan Levine Coast Action Group