SU0013248 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mackviile Road and across the Mackville Bridge between the propose: quarry area and the processing facility woald be the best alternative . In the discussion of the "ido River Crossing " alternative in the FEIR there are very confused and illogical conclusions formed about access , easements and ricilit-of-ways . Why were not these considerations pursued to ser if they could possibly be worked out . 4 . The input arid reco,ilmendat.ions provided by Fete Bontade'_ 1i , Director of CDFG, were not sufficiently considered . He makes very direct references to the bridge relocation issue and clearly demonstrates his support for the ''No River Crossing" alternative . He identifies the " significant wildlife habitats" and the well developed riparian wetland corridor , ' affected by this proposed project . He points out , that there are , "Several unresolved issues raised by the DFG in its response to the Notice of Preparation : " 1 . "Projects potential for siltation , pollution , entrapment of fish, and changes in the course of the Mokelumne River brought on by high stream flows . 2 . Relocation of the bridge poses serious threats of pollution and siltation of the Mokelumne River . " He states , "We recommend the adoption of the "No River Crossing" alternative_ . " It "represents the least environmentally damaging alterIiative aIid avoids loss of r 1.Dar _an wetland habitat. " In response to his comments the Planning Division dismisses the potential impacts noted , as being small and mitigated . If you refer to Section ( 3 . 2 . 3 ) it mentions that efforts should be undertaken to minimize affects of high stream flow, but does not explain how this will be accomplished . The possibility of siltation , pollution and changing the course of the river is very significant and I feel unresolved . There is no real mitigation to offset the impact , just suggestions about bridge construction. I offer the suggestion , that appropriate- mitigation ppropriatemitigation might be , as I mentioned above , the creation of spawning beds on the north . bank. The proposed solution of dealing with groundwater in the excavation site is very disturbing . I do not think that adding water to surface waters (ponds ) is an acceptable alternative . This would increase their susceptibility to overflow into the Mokelumne- , especially during wet periods. Why was CDFG not given the opportunity to comment further and recommend alternatives on this issue? The FEIR, Planning Division Staff and the Planning Commission dismissed too easily the very insistent recommendations on the affects of bridge relocation. The suggested mitigations do not go far enough in assuring environmental safeguards. The CDFG ..recommends that the "No River Crossing" alternative be adopted . They, further , suggest they "would not oppose certification . . . if the above-mentioned ( "No River Crossing" ) recommendations are incorporated into the document ( EIR ) and made conditions of the permit approved . " In other words , they are opposed to the project as approved . In the response to comment section following , it mentions that the lead agency, the County, may require the applicant to further investigate one or more of the project alternatives . Was this required? If not, why not , considering the critical nature of this stretch of the river . -11-