Laserfiche WebLink
Last but not least, is the matter of the extremely weak <br /> treatment of the possible cumulative effects in the D. E. I . R. <br /> Under section 5-3 on pg. 5-1, there is not even mention of <br /> the potential loss of 725 acres of farmland in the list of <br /> potential cumulative effects. There is no real in-depth <br /> consideration of the cumulative effect of this project' s <br /> impact regarding such things as the diversion of water from <br /> an already unhealthy river ecosystem, the cumulative effect <br /> of loss of habitat in the County and its relationship to D17 <br /> species decline, the cumulative impact of contributing to <br /> already existing problems of poor air quality and over- <br /> crowding of schools in the area. Both of the latter were <br /> casually dismissed as not the responsibility of the developer <br /> because the "problem already exists" . The logic of <br /> encouraging exacerbation of an already existing problem <br /> simply because it is there and dismissing the growing <br /> consequences of "adding to" rather than addressing such <br /> problems escapes me. <br /> In conclusion, I support the DFG recommendation that the <br /> "no project alternative is environmentally superior" and <br /> request that our County take necessary and appropriate steps <br /> to secure this area as a valuable resource for all the <br /> residents of the County. Generations to come will never <br /> have more than what we protect and save for them now. This <br /> is a heritage to be handed on to future generations, not <br /> buried beneath a subdivision and yet another golf course. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Glenda Hesseltine <br /> C. U. M. E. <br /> (209) 759-3410 <br /> page five <br /> VI-51 <br />