SU0013248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

way ( FEIR 5 . 5 ) that , "Mining , construction , and other activities _=gong the Mol:elu:,,ne River cor:tri)'_-uta' to impacts or, teat e-Y gl'icl ity and fisheries in :he rimer . Removal and relocation of the access road bri• ge along the river could contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources . " _,dice this stretch of river has already been identifies: by Rv,,QCE as a " limited water quality secrient" any other farther d?egradation would be catastrophic on already critically reduced levels of fisheries . I uo not filed any proposed specific mitigation for the bridge relocatioli and its adverse affects on water quality and fisheries , which i , required to reduce impacts- from the proiect to less than slgiilflcant 1eveIs . Dam&k— e to the T1�)arlali COrTidGT 1S a:i..trr'ase.d and a mitigation is attPmptet , !Dut nothiJig Specifically as mitlgatiUli for til? ?111 e . The 1`::tenti & 1 fur —_`verse inn--acts to the river is clearly noted in tiie impact section , ieferrirlct to ycceJJ i.l+a all .,1 idg' L:. r) ` _J7j Jf the __R ( 3 . 3 . 2 ) . Ne iGCdt1 !] Cf e l:'ri'age cc..011, incr ;' e i_ :J'1i: e 1 o c)1) a11,1 sedimentation in the river . Tliis could result in decreased water quality and impact to Fish and spawning gravels . This impact is considered potentially significant . " In the mitigation measures that -follow ( 3 . 3 . 3 ) it mentiol s a mitictation plan for the riparian corridor ( ` , , � . 1 �� . f and offeC-�e' wetlands l:)vt ii Cl mitigation for the 111' liige , only a r ei ter at ton of adverse impacts to water quality and fisheries and a directive about specifics in bridge construction ( 9 . ) . This is a serious flaw in the FEIR and in the permit as approved . I suggest , it is reason enough for rescinding approval aIle reviewing this, bridge issue to provide specific mitigation for impacts to this critical stretch of the river . An appropriate mitigation that should be worked into this project is the construction of spawning beds near the river at CCW' s present quarry gravel pits. on the north bank of the river . I am sure CDFG, U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service and East Eay Municipal Utility District would , enthusiastically, approve and work with CCW on such a project. A Memorandum of Understanding could be drawn up , plays made and the project executed . It seems only appropriate that CCW would want to give a little batt: to the river that they have been well served ]Dv in the extraction: of gravels . They have the equipment- the quipmenttyle manpower and the resources in place to turn their tailings into a positive benefit to the river . I think the whole community of San Joaquin County would applaud this gesture . 3 . A very important point and one I feel is critical to this appeal is the apparent insufficient consideration of the "No River Crossing" ( 4 . 2 ) alternative . Most of the key points I am using to appeal this Planking Commission decision would be mute points if this alternative was the one approved . Adverse affects by bridge relocation and the haul road would not be issues and very little mitigation would be required . The only apparent significant impact with this alternative would be to traffic . Traffic , to my observance on the affected roads , is very light. Use of public roads is a small consideration when you consider the irrevocable environmental consequences of the alternative approved. I suggest , transportation and access directly to -10-