Home

San Francisco District

Run scraper

Canyon Rock

Basic information

Fill out these two fields at minimum.

— or —

How Big?

Where?

Links to source documents

Raw text

You can copy from here when filling out the rest of the page.

Canyon Rock, Inc. has applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), San Francisco District, for a Department of the Army Permit to harvest in stream gravel using a method that will enhance fisheries habitat within the lower reach of Austin Creek, tributary to the Russian River in the Town of Cazadero, Sonoma County, California.

Austin Creek Aggregate Harvest

PUBLIC NOTICE NUMBER: 2014-00310N PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: September 10, 2018 COMMENTS DUE DATE: October 1, 2018 PERMIT MANAGER: Roberta Morganstern | TELEPHONE: 415-503-6782 | E-MAIL: Roberta.A.Morganstern@usace.army.mil

1. INTRODUCTION:

Canyon Rock, Inc. 7525 Highway 116 (Post Office Box 597) in Forestville, California through its agent, North Coast Engineering (Matthew Damos: 707-953-7094), has applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), San Francisco District, for a Department of the Army Permit to harvest in stream gravel using a method that will enhance fisheries habitat within the lower reach of Austin Creek, tributary to the Russian River in the Town of Cazadero, Sonoma County, California. This Department of the Army permit application is being processed pursuant to the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.).

2. PROPOSED PROJECT:

Project Site Location: The project is located at 600 Austin Creek Road in Cazadero, Sonoma County, California. Gravel Mine and Enhancement Sites are shown in Figure 1 and a location map is Figure 2. APNs for the project location include 097-030-029; 097-080, -007 and 097-230-036. The project coordinates are 38°28’29.50N and -123°2’56.29W. Diamond "T" Natural Resources, LLC owns the project parcel as well as properties on both sides of Austin Creek.

Project Site Description: Austin Creek is a large tributary to the Russian River and drains a 68.7 square mile watershed. Austin Creek begins in the Coast Range and drains in a southerly direction toward the Russian River. Mining has been done for over one hundred years, beginning with road construction by the early settlers. Localized disturbance has continued with mining, destruction of hill slopes and stream channel, wildfires and construction of summer dams. These practices, combined with highly erosive geology contribute to excessive sediment buildup in Austin Creek channel.

Project Description: As shown in the attached drawings, the applicant proposes to harvest gravel from four gravel bars during the preferred work window between June 15 and November 1. The applicant will use heavy machinery to move gravel into a stockpile and haul by truck to the processing plant. Extraction areas will be accessed from three existing access points. Rail car bridges will be installed to access Bars 1 and 3. No work will take place in the wetted channel. Gravel will be removed from bars 1 through 4 using the method known as "horseshoe" skimming and progress sequentially upstream from the downstream end of each bar. Reference elevations and NMFS guidance dictate the location of the "horseshoe" skim area. During pre-mining meetings, NMFS personnel will offer guidance for pool excavation and placement of habitat structures.

Basic Project Purpose: The basic project purpose comprises the fundamental, essential, or irreducible purpose of the project, and is used by USACE to determine whether the project is water dependent. The basic project purpose is to harvest gravel.

Overall Project Purpose: The overall project purpose serves as the basis for the Section 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis and is determined by further defining the basic project purpose in a manner that more specifically describes the applicant's goals for the project while allowing a reasonable range of alternatives to be analyzed. The overall project purpose is to harvest aggregate for commercial sale from a locally available source.

Project Impacts: The applicant proposes to remove up to 50,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel per year averaging approximately 12,000 cubic yards each of four bars. The four bars cover approximately 1930 linear feet combined along the creek. At the end of five years, the project will 2 be reevaluated to determine the feasibility of another five years of extraction.

Proposed Mitigation: In addition to harvesting gravel, the project has been designed to improve salmonid habitat by increasing pool depth and complexity. Utilizing the methodology as described in NMFS’ Sediment Removal Guidelines preserves the form of the gravel bar. No work will be performed in the wetted channel. The applicant has agreed to extract gravel according to NMFS methodology. Submittal of annual pre- and post- gravel mining monitoring reports will allow NMFS to recommend locations and volumes for the next year’s excavation.

3. STATE AND LOCAL APPROVALS:

Water Quality Certification: State water quality certification or a waiver thereof is a prerequisite for the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit to conduct any activity which may result in a fill or pollutant discharge into waters of the United States, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq.). The applicant has submitted an application to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to obtain water quality certification for the project. No Department of the Army Permit will be issued until the applicant obtains the required certification or a waiver of certification. A waiver can be explicit, or it may be presumed if the RWQCB fails or refuses to act on a complete application for water quality certification within 60 days of receipt, unless the District Engineer determines a shorter or longer period is a reasonable time for the RWQCB to act.

Water quality issues should be directed to the Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, 5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A, Santa Rosa, California 95403.

Coastal Zone Management: Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1456(c) et seq.), requires a non-Federal applicant seeking a federal license or permit to conduct any activity occurring in or affecting the coastal zone to obtain a Consistency Certification that indicates the activity conforms with the state’s coastal zone management program. Generally, no federal license or permit will be granted until the appropriate State agency has issued a Consistency Determination or has waived its right to do so. The project does not occur in the coastal zone, and a preliminary review by USACE indicates the project is not likely to affect coastal zone resources.

Coastal zone management issues should be directed to the District Supervisor, California Coastal Commission, Supervisor, California Coastal Commission, North Central Coast District Office, 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, California 94105-4508 by the close of the comment period.

Other Local Approvals: The applicant has applied for the following additional governmental authorizations for the project: California Department of Fish & Wildlife 1600 permit; Sonoma County Use and Zoning Permits.

4. COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS FEDERAL LAWS:

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Upon review of the Department of the Army permit application and other supporting documentation, USACE has made a preliminary determination that the project neither qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion nor requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the purposes of NEPA. At the conclusion of the public comment period, USACE will assess the environmental impacts of the project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 1500-1508, and USACE regulations at 33 C.F.R. § 325. The final NEPA analysis will normally address the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that result from regulated activities within the jurisdiction of USACE and other non-regulated activities USACE determines to be within its purview of Federal control and responsibility to justify an expanded scope of analysis for NEPA purposes. The final NEPA analysis will be incorporated in the decision documentation that provides the rationale for issuing or denying a Department of the Army Permit for the project. The final NEPA analysis and supporting documentation will be on file with the San Francisco District, Regulatory Division.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally-listed species or result in the adverse modification of designated 3

critical habitat. As the Federal lead agency for this project, USACE has conducted a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base, digital maps prepared by USFWS and NMFS depicting critical habitat, and other information provided by the applicant to determine the presence or absence of such species and critical habitat in the project area. Based on this review, USACE has made a preliminary determination that the following Federally-listed species and designated critical habitat are present at the project location or in its vicinity and may be affected by project implementation. The Corps has determined the project may affect Central California Coast (CCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), CCC steelhead (O. mykiss), designated critical habitat for these salmonid fish species, and designated essential fish habitat for coho salmon and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). To address project related impacts to these species designated critical habitat, USACE will initiate formal consultation with NMFS, pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Act. Any required consultation must be concluded prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit for the project

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA): Section 305(b)(2) of the MSFCMA of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on all proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. EFH is designated only for those species managed under a Federal Fisheries Management Plan (FMP), such as the Pacific Groundfish FMP, the Coastal Pelagics FMP, or the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP. As the Federal lead agency for this project, USACE has conducted a review of digital maps prepared by NMFS depicting EFH to determine the presence or absence of EFH in the project area. Based on this review, USACE has made a preliminary determination that EFH is present at the project location or in its vicinity and that the critical elements of EFH may be adversely affected by project implementation. To address project related impacts to EFH, USACE will initiate consultation with NMFS, pursuant to Section 305(5(b)(2) of the Act. Any required consultation must be concluded prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit for the project. To complete the administrative record and the decision on whether to issue a Department of the Army Permit for the project, USACE will obtain all necessary supporting documentation from the applicant concerning the consultation process. Any required consultation must be concluded prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit for the project.

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA): Section 302 of the MPRSA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1432 et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, in part, to designate areas of ocean waters, such as the Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay, as National Marine Sanctuaries for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values. After such designation, activities in sanctuary waters authorized under other authorities are valid only if the Secretary of Commerce certifies that the activities are consistent with Title III of the Act. No Department of the Army Permit will be issued until the applicant obtains any required certification or permit. The project does not occur in sanctuary waters, and a preliminary review by USACE indicates the project is not likely to affect sanctuary resources. This presumption of effect, however, remains subject to a final determination by the Secretary of Commerce or his designee.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consult with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the Act further requires Federal agencies to consult with the appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or any Indian tribe to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, trust resources, and sacred sites, to which Indian tribes attach historic, religious, and cultural significance. As the Federal lead agency for this undertaking, USACE has conducted a review of the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places, survey information on file with various city and county municipalities, and other information provided by the applicant to determine the presence or absence of historic and archaeological resources within the permit area. Based on this review, USACE has made a preliminary determination that historic or archaeological resources are not likely to be present in the permit area and that the project either has no potential to cause effects to these resources or has no effect to these resources. USACE will render a final determination on the need for consultation at the close of the comment period, taking into account any comments provided by the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Tribal Historic 4

Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Native American Nations or other tribal governments. To complete the administrative record and the decision on whether to issue a Department of the Army Permit for the project, USACE will obtain all necessary supporting documentation from the applicant concerning the consultation process. Any required consultation must be concluded prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit for the project. If unrecorded archaeological resources are discovered during project implementation, those operations affecting such resources will be temporarily suspended until USACE concludes Section 106 consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to take into account any project related impacts to those resources.

5. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES:

Projects resulting in discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must comply with the Guidelines promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344(b)). Since the project does not entail the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, application of the Guidelines will not be required. An evaluation pursuant to the Guidelines indicates the project is not dependent on location in or proximity to waters of the United States to achieve the basic project purpose.

6. PUBLIC INTEREST EVALUTION:

The decision on whether to issue a Department of the Army Permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the project and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts requires a careful weighing of the public interest factors relevant in each particular case. The benefits that may accrue from the project must be balanced against any reasonably foreseeable detriments of project implementation. The decision on permit issuance will, therefore, reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. Public interest factors which may be relevant to the decision process include conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.

7. CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS:

USACE is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Native American Nations or other tribal governments; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of the project. All comments received by USACE will be considered in the decision on whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a Department of the Army Permit for the project. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, and other environmental or public interest factors addressed in a final environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest in the project.

8. SUBMITTING COMMENTS:

During the specified comment period, interested parties may submit written comments to Roberta Morganstern San Francisco District, Regulatory Division, 1455 Market Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, California 94103-1398; comment letters should cite the project name, applicant name, and public notice number to facilitate review by the Regulatory Permit Manager. Comments may include a request for a public hearing on the project prior to a determination on the Department of the Army permit application; such requests shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. All substantive comments will be forwarded to the applicant for resolution or rebuttal. Additional project information or details on any subsequent project modifications of a minor nature may be obtained from the applicant and/or agent or by contacting the Regulatory Permit Manager by telephone or e-mail (cited in the public notice letterhead). An electronic version of this public notice may be viewed under the Public Notices tab on the USACE website: www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.

Rough impact

We use the fields in this section to decide whether to conduct an in-depth review.

Permit Manager

Dates

Identity numbers

Permits, certifications, and locations related to this particular notice

History of edits

Data are available as CSV download in the following schemas