Laserfiche WebLink
3.Response to Comments <br /> V <br /> Response to Comment J-8 <br /> Comment states that the toxic emission factors in appendix D be identified, and that the emission <br /> L. factors for both the concrete batch plant and aggregate processing are needed. <br /> Please see assumptions for revised air quality analysis and health risk assessment. <br /> La Response to Comment J-9 <br /> Commenter states that it was inappropriate to use the CALINE4 dispersion model to quantify risk <br /> Lfrom mobile emissions, and recommends the AERMOD dispersion be used to model all risks. <br /> 1 AERMOD was used in the HARP assessment. <br /> LResponse to Comment J-10 <br /> Commenter states that the met data was not included in the DEIR, and the data gap filling in the <br /> Lmet data was not discussed in the analysis, and requests this information so that the District can <br /> verify the adequacy of the met data and modeling. <br /> { Air modeling has been redone, as part of the HARP analysis(included in Appendix A). <br /> Letter K. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers <br /> Comment K-1 <br /> LCommenter states the Corps of Engineers'jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. <br /> No response necessary. <br /> L <br /> Comment K-2 <br /> L Commenter states the applicant should prepare a wetland delineation should be prepared and <br /> submitted for verification. <br /> The County's consultant has prepared a wetland delineation in accordance with Corps of <br /> Engineers standards. This delineation will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers following <br /> I action by the County on the proposed project,as necessary. <br /> L <br /> Comment K-3 <br /> LCommenter states that the range of alternatives for the project should include alternatives that <br /> avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the US. <br /> LHospital Creek has been identified as a potential "waters of the U.S." (pending verification by the <br /> Corps of Engineers). No other jurisdictional wetlands or waters were identified. The Project <br /> description includes two options for the mining plan. Option I would avoid Hospital Creek. <br /> LAlternative 2, Scenario 2 (the reduced project alternative)would avoid mining in Phase V,which <br /> would also avoid impacts to Hospital Creek.These alternatives will be considered by the County. <br /> LCemez Vernals Quarry Mining and RmWination ProjeO 3-39 ESA/203015 <br /> Final Emirminental Impact Report June 2008 <br /> L <br />