Gravel Mining

Damaging Russian River Gravel Mining Plan Challenged

After exhausting all other remedies, Russian Riverkeeper and the Redwood Empire Chapter of Trout Unlimited filed a lawsuit January 6, 2011 challenging the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ December 7, 2010 approval of a massive gravel mining operation called the Syar Alexander Valley Instream Mining Project. The instream gravel-mining project seeks to extract almost double the highest peer reviewed estimate of natural gravel recharge, which will lead to destruction of salmon habitat and erosion of downstream properties. Syar claims the project mitigations and an “enhancement” project to create alcoves on gravel bars and perform restoration will actually benefit the Russian River and its endangered salmon. They can call a turkey an eagle all they want but it will always be a turkey. According to fisheries biologist and Humboldt State University fisheries professor Dr. Bill Trush, “The likely significant loss in high quality rearing and spawning habitat for salmon and steelhead in the mainstem channel will more than offset any habitat gain provided by the alcove construction proposed”. By damaging high value naturally created spawning and rearing habitat and replacing it with Syar’s proposed experimental alcoves and enhancements the Russian River and our salmon will end up in worse shape as a result of this project.

Download Press release

Download copy of lawsuit (1 MB)

More Gravel Mining?

Syar proposal to mine up to 350,000 tons per year speeds through county approval process

On October 26th, the Sonoma County Supervisors voted 5-0 to approve Syar Industries massive 350,000 tons per year 15-year mining permit based on a flawed EIR and information not available to the public. The Syar Project went through county review in record time to ensure outgoing Supervisor Paul Kelley could vote to approve it. Supervisor Kelley has received extensive support in past elections from Syar and the mining industry. The project ignores basic scientific knowledge that excessive mining will degrade or destroy critical habitat for endangered salmon and steelhead and lead to increased erosion downstream that will damage others property. Due to flaws in the EIR and science behind the plan it is likely Riverkeeper will seek legal remedies to address this flawed project.

 

Description of Proposed Syar Alexander Valley Mining Project

• 15 year permit for mining 350,000 tons per year from 15 gravel bars near Geyserville
• Allows for excavation of majority of gravel accumulated since 1994 using a baseline
• Generate up to 480 heavy trucks between Geyserville and Healdsburg during summer
• Requires ARM amendments allowing 15 year permit rather than 10 and to allow mining in the upper 2/3’s of gravel bars
• Ignores sediment budgets although requires annual monitoring and agency review

Syar Plan Based on Flawed Data & Science

One of the most basic principles of gravel mining is that extracting more gravel than the river can replenish will lead to adverse impacts such as damage or destruction of critical fish habitat and increased erosion and property loss downstream. Syar consultants claim in studies that over 600,000 tons of gravel courses through the project area in average flood events and based on this information the Project EIR claims that taking 350,000 tons per year would not create impacts. In the Philip Williams and Associates report commissioned by Riverkeeper (available at right), it calls into question the methods and math used by the Syar consultants and states, “several of the flaws exhibited are so significant as to make the results unusable”. When the county was confronted with this information their consultant claimed that sediment budgets do not matter! As stated in the NOAA guidelines, “A sediment budget is analogous to a bank account.  If funds withdrawn (sediment removed + natural export) exceed funds deposited (sediment input), a negative budget results in a diminishing balance.  Erosion of sediment from the bed and banks (savings) makes up for the import/export deficit.” Obviously ignoring the sediment budget will result in adverse impacts to the River, fish and downstream property owners.

Syar Mining Plan Almost Certain to Destroy Salmonid Habitat

The Syar project proposes to mine out gravel accumulated since 1994, at rates up to 350,000 tons per year. The problem with using a "redline" method even with annual monitoring is that it ignores the River's ability to replenish mined bars, which will lead to destruction of salmon habitat. As stated above, if we ignore the rivers ability to replenish bars AND leave enough gravel for downstream areas, it will lead to erosion, property loss and habitat destruction downstream of the mined area. The NOAA 2004 guidelines, which was peer reviewed by five independent scientists, clearly show the impacts that over-mining will have on our endangered salmon habitat such as:
- Lower success of spawning redds & loss of spawning habitat
- Reduced trophic food production & water quality
- Increased water temps in inland, narrow rivers
- Less habitat complexity & dewatering of back channels and wetlands
(from NOAA Fisheries 2004 guidelines Table ES1)

Follow the Money of River Mining

Many of the project supporters are members of the Russian River Property Owners Association that has always had a very close relationship with Syar Industries. The most vocal members and supporters of the Syar Plan stand to personally benefit from business deals with Syar to lease their land or gravel haul truck routes to Syar.  The proposed project at maximum volume would generate up to $147 million in revenues for Syar. Property owners who do not lease land to Syar largely support the project since they perceive –incorrectly – that they stand to benefit from reduction in bank erosion and flooding, which is an illusion as described below. Although the project claims to be beneficial to the River it is telling that every single environmental, conservation or fisheries organization in the region opposes the project.

Syar proponents claims of flood and erosion relief false and misleading

During public meetings on the Syar Project the overwhelming reason for support from locals is the incorrect belief that mining will reduce flooding and protect the Geyserville Bridge. The claims that mining would “increase flood capacity” is clearly debunked by NOAA Fisheries 2004 sediment removal guidelines that state that mining does not improve or change flood flows which are impeded by narrow sections of the River such as Geyserville Bridge. Since the River width goes from 2,200 feet wide upstream to 716 at Geyserville Bridge, no amount of mining will increase flood passage under the bridge as it is a constriction. As clearly stated on page 68 of the NOAA guidelines (download report at right panel) this will only increase flood storage for a few hours but not increase flood flows ability to pass under the bridge. As with so many purported claims of mining benefits the claim of flood relief is an illusion.

The claims that mining will increase protection of the Geyserville Bridge are illusory as well. In the 2006 New Years flood, the river currents scoured out the central support for the bridge and it failed, leading to major impacts on the local community. Mining supporters claim the lack of mining caused the river to “attack” the bridge supports from an angle but when one views the pictures of the bridge after construction in 1932, one can clearly see the bridge supports are half buried in gravel.

After enormous amounts of gravel were extracted from 1940 to 1990 the river incised or down-cut exposing the entire depth of the bridge supports leading to its failure. As noted above the overly narrow bridge poses a major constriction on the River forcing the current to speed up to pass under the bridge and leading to more erosive force. The only means of permanently protecting the bridge is to widen it, which Riverkeeper advocates as the only sustainable solution.

Project proponents claim Syar mining is needed to prevent bank erosion and flooding but science shows that erosion is not eliminated but moved downstream so mining area properties temporarily benefit by relocating impacts to other property owners downstream. Recent bank erosion is caused by past gravel mining that caused down-cutting of the River channel leaving behind high steep banks (download graphic). Proponents claim that the erosion is due to the large buildup of gravel, ignoring the hourglass shape of the river that changes river equilibrium. In river-speak the problem is not too much gravel but blockages to sediment transport posed by un-naturally narrow sections of river. Rather than address these blockages or constrictions that would allow sediment to pass through the area, the county supports perpetual gravel mining as their unsustainable solution.

Syar Project Will Have Major Impacts to Community & River

• Up to 480 heavy gravel haul trucks per day – one every 90 seconds
• Tons of cancer causing diesel particulate emissions and fugitive dust
• Unavoidable project impacts – Noise & Aesthetics
• Starve downstream areas of sediment supply leading to property loss
• Over-mining will degrade or destroy critical habitat for salmon and steelhead
• Proposed River enhancement plan allows rip-rapping banks

Open Pit Mining Impacts

Another major gravel mining impact we will pay for as taxpayers is dealing with the hundreds of acres of Open Pit gravel mines that are unstable, pollutant filled holes in our future water supplies. Open Pit mines exist in the Middle Reach below Healdsburg and in the Ukiah Valley. We will focus on the Middle Reach impacts here as they are the same or worse in Ukiah Valley.

These aerials show the Middle Reach of the Russian River below Healdsburg and the extent of Open Pit mines.

The picture above shows the rough boundaries of the Middle Reach aquifer in blue and the Open Pits in red...almost half of the highest yield parts of our aquifer are gone forever due to polluted Open Pit Mines that will never be reclaimed.

"Only with careful, informed management and strong regulatory controls that address localized, immediate effects and reach- scale mining-related cumulative effects can instream gravel mining be conducted without
excessively compromising salmonid habitat."

Source: An evaluation of Regulations, Effects and Management of Aggregate Mining in Northern and Central Coastal California, Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service, Trinity Associates, 2000