SU0004097 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C) Biological Resources, MONK&ASSOCIATES Impacts and Mitigations Tracy Facility Expansion Site public and multi-agency review procedures (i.e., public notice and receipt of public comments), and must contain an" �? alternatives analysis thata resents convincing g ar gamest why the existing project site is the best practical alternative alive to construct the project. The alternatives analysis should include financial considerations, zoning issues, logistics,available utilities, and biology. This permit may be available for use in the event that discharges into regulated waters fail to meet conditions ofNWP(s). Projects that result in minimal adverse impacts to waters of the United States may qualify for NWPs. NWPs are a type of general permit administered by the Corps•that are issued on a nationwide basis. Typically,NWPs are issued for use over a several year period before being revoked, modified and reissued. Providing applicants meet.conditions of the issued NWPs, impacts to minor activities that affect Corps regulated waters may be permitted. Under NWP,if permit conditions are met, the specified activities can take place without the need for an individual or regional permit from the Corps (33 CFR, Section 235.5[c][2]). In order to use NWP(s), a project must meet 15 general nationwide permit conditions,nine Section 404 only conditions, and all specific conditions pertaining to the actual NWP being used(as presented at 33 CFR Section 330, Appendices A and C). Pursuant to 33 CFR Section 330.4(e), there may also be special regional conditions or modifications to NWPs that could have relevance to individual proposed projects. Finally,pursuant to 33 CFR Section 330.6(x),Nationwide permittees may, and in some cases must, request from the Corps confirmation that an activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP intended for use(i.e., must receive"verification"from the Corps). Prior to finalizing design plans,project applicants need to be aware that the Corps maintains a policy that there shall be`duo net loss" of wetlands(waters of the United States)from development. Therefore, it is incumbent upon applicants that propose to impact Corps regulated areas to submit a mitigation plan to the Coxes that demonstrates that wetlands have been avoided to the extent possible. Also, that demonstrates that impacted regulated areas would be re-created (i.e., impacts would be mitigated). Typically,the Corps requires mitigation to be"in-kind"(i.e., if a stream channel would be filled, mitigation would include replacing it with a new stream channel), and at a minimum of a 1:1 replacement ratio (i.e., one acre or fraction thereof would need to be re-created for each acre or fraction thereof impacted). In some cases, the Corps allows "out-of kind"mitigation if the compensation site has greater value than the impacted site. Mitigation requirements are always negotiated with the Corps and in many cases with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board(see next section for greater detail). 12.1.1 APPLicAaiuTy To THE PROPOSED PROJECT In order to cross Corral Hollow Creek, Granite is proposing a temporary road crossing over this creek.. Three parallel 48-inch diameter x 40-foot long corrugated steel culvertswould be installed and removed each dry season during the first two years of the mining project to provide access to the north portion of the project site. After the north portion is mined out in the second year,the crossing would be removed permanently.. Prior to installing these culverts in Corral .Hollow Creek, it will be necessary for Granite to receive verification from the Corps that this activity meets all conditions of Nationwide Permit 14(for road crossings). i i I 22