SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L3.Response to Comments ` Response to Comment B-24 Commenter states that the DEIR did not disclose the significant impact of exhaust emissions of '6a NOx and PM10 from Project construction, and does not contain any responsive mitigation. Commenter states that the six mitigation measures included in the DEIR do not mitigate the significant combustion emission impacts for two reasons: the measures are not required ` (therefore the language should be changed to require these measures), and the measures by themselves would not reduce the significant PM10 and NOx emissions from construction Lequipment to a less than significant level. Commenter also notes that note 4 to the Draft EIR's Table 4.6-4 needs to be corrected regarding Lengine exhaust mitigation in Mitigation Measure 4.6.1. Comment is incorrect. Potentially significant construction emissions are identified in Impact L4.6.1. The mitigation measure,compliance with Regulation VIII, is an enforceable regulation. Note 4 should refer to Impact 4.6.1 rather than Mitigation Measure 4.6.1. L Response to Comment B-25 L Commenter lists suggested mitigation measures for fugitive dust from both Project construction and operation. While only the decision making body (the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors)can decide whether or not a given mitigation measure is feasible,the Final EIR includes feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce or avoid a significant environmental impact. 6, Many of the items on the comment list, including vegetation controls,watering of roads and stockpiles,paving of on-site roads,wheel washers,wind breaks,phasing of the project, suspension of activity during high winds,are included in the project description or required either L. by Regulation VIII or the San Joaquin County erosion control ordinance. Several of these measures,including the use of chemical stabilizers,are based on the assumption that ` 75%dust control efficiency cannot be achieved with the proper application of water. See Response to Comment B-33.It should also be noted that the use of chemical stabilizers may have secondary environmental effects. In addition, several of the referred to measures are inapplicable to a mining site as they were written for a construction site,e.g. backfilling access to property. We also note that Clark County,Nevada receives substantially less rain than San Joaquin County, California. `, Response to Comment B-26 Commenter states that project operational impacts, as described in the spreadsheet attached to I the letter, are underestimated in the following source: (1) quarry processing operations; (2) L• concrete production; (3) asphalt production, (4) recycling construction materials; (5)haul trucks;and(6)various fugitive sources. This comment is addressed specifically in subsequent responses. LCam Vernalis Quarry Mining ant Reclamation PmjeR 3-11 ESA/20W15 Final Environmental Impact Report June 2000 L