75A - PH - EIR 1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE

Home Browse Search

9788. Dally Appellate Report Monday, fuly,29_j,?%3' project life (rather than as a permanent structure, as under the proposed project)," and eliminated the need for ongoing maintenance of the weir and fuse plug. The Draft determined that "stranding or entrapment of special- status salmonids" would be a potentially significant impact if the Project were constructed with the weir and fuse plug. However, mitigation measures that included salmonid rescue and relocation programs implemented in consultation with NMFS and the Department of Fish and Game (Fish & Game), would make this impact "[l] ess than significant" The Draftfurther stated that if Alternative 3 was implemented, it would "reduce[] fire potential significance of pit capture and salmonid entrapment" and "eliminate the need for the rescue plan.." In November 4, 2009, comments on the Draft, NMFS expressed concern that when pit mining operations resulted in ponds of standing groundwater more than 35 feet deep, anaerobic conditions would threaten the vitality of any salmonids trapped in the ponds, and the depths of the reclaimed ponds would need to be regulated to achieve suitable habitat. The County determined in the EIR that Alternative 3 was "environmentally superior" to the weir and fuse plug, an d the NMFS supported Alternative 3 in comments submitted prior to Planning Commission approval of the EIR As approved, the Project included the pond -river connection in lieu of the weir and fuse plug reflected in the revised reclamation plan appended to the EIR Although the Draft stated that the pond - river connection would eliminate the need for a salmonid rescue program, the EfR retained a rescue program during the training phase of the Project. The Draft set forth two options for the reclamation phase. Option A provided for construction of the pond -river connection unless NMFS and Fish & Game staff determined that the "potential adverse -water quality within the pit" would outweigh the connection's expected benefits to salmonid habitat. Option B required Granite to continue the salmonid rescue program until NMFS and Fish &'Game said it was no longer needed.'- In the EIR, Option B was unchanged, and Option A was amended to-provide simply for construction of the pond -river connection. The deference to NMFS and Fish & Game concerns over water quality in the pit was replaced in the EIR by more detailed mitigation requirements, set forth in new mitigation measure 3.4.4 -ALT 3, to address concerns raised in NMFS's November 2009letter. Specifically, the EIRstated that Granite would ]unit the depth in the reclaimed ponds to 35 feet as NMFS stated would be acceptable, or deeper if acceptable pursuant to a future. water quality assessment' (b) F000dplain Benching The term "loodplain benching' refers to a proposal by Granite in the Project application, to widen fire Ackerman Creek and 'Russian River channels "to improve channel hydraulic capacity and winter rearing habitat for salmomils above what is currently available which, in torn, will increase annual winter juvenile' {ord survivability in the project vicynry. " "" "lhis "floodplain benching" was incorporated'into'the Draft, along with mitigation measures for its impact on salmonids and riparian habitat In its comments on the Draft, SCS Engineers for Masonite criticized the floodplain benching. SCS wrote; "Artificial and unwarranted 'improvements' such as those proposed,,bay` Granite serve to upset the equilibriufil'10'fth9' fluvial system for the financial benefit' of�one not to negative impacts may include increased potential for flooding or other unanticipated; non - linear response's that may occur ... as' a re'sult'of !the proposed of the channel, .. unwarranted 111 .. [Tibereli is little or no geomorphic or other scientific justification for such a proposal and many potential; pitfalls." The Mendocino County Water' Agency also expressed concerns that erosion would occur, in the floodplain bench area. In response to these comments, Alternative 3 was revised in'theEfR to eliminate floodplain benching from the Project The EIR also observed that removal bf floodplain relative to the baseline condition." _ _ After close of the period for public comment' on the Draft, the California Department' of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation' wrote a letter" to the County noting that floodplam, benchhur was "consoicuousIv absent" 'from the most recent version of the reclamation place lhe� Department of Conservation ^(DOC) "tliougHC that floodplain benching 'likely would provide' a' great benefit to the wildlife and riparian habitat" along the active drainages and may provide 'some- flood control benefit The plans to complete the floodplain enhancement should be put 'back in the reclamation plan, or a reasonable justification for removing taus enhancement work'ehbi ld'be provided." Granite responded that- ifloodjp benching was only a' "'voluntary camponAd4ny the project! " that "'added no net environmental benefit'" and was being removed "to avoid potential environmental impacts.'" was "not tied to any specific . mitigation for the project, essen the issue as a concern under CE( .many of the potential impacts d [Draft] regarding riparian and habitats would be eliminated will the floodplain benching compon since the environmental benefl benching were "debatable," stall position and left it up to the Plard to determine whether to req benching in the Project At Commission meeting, staff ath & Game had concerns that floc would adversely affect water i habitat of the Frog. After taking discussing the matter, the Planm