As noted by the editor in today’s Record Searchlight, you have only 2 days left to register your comments about the EIR for proposed large quarry at Moody Flats. I noted my opposition to the Project (as currently proposed) in a prior post. Here’s a quote from the EIR report Part 2 page 17:
“As a result, over the 100–‐year life of the Project the site would be transformed from wooded open space of high scenic and visual quality to views of mining benches, exposed dirt and rocks, industrial equipment, access and haul roads. Viewers travelling along the Interstate 5 corridor may experience views of a disturbed mine slope of 400 – 600 feet high, which would be visually prominent when compared to the surrounding hillsides. The existing quality and character of the site would be dramatically changed by the proposed Project. This is considered a Significant Impact.“
Emphasis theirs. Likely everyone reading can imagine what such a large quarry will look like.
“As shown above, maximum predicted 24—hour PM10 concentrations would exceed California AAQs (both scenarios) and federal standards (Scenario 1), even before consideration of appropriate background concentrations and therefore predict a Significant Impact.“
Emphasis theirs. PM10 is tiny particulate matter that gets in your lungs, and won’t come out. Readers should consider that we already have elevated PM10 in the basin from (among others) existing operations at the Lehigh HeidelbergCement Group quarry, and the Knauf Fiberglass facility in Shasta Lake City.
Knauf Fibergass, a German company manufacturing in Shasta Lake City
Lehigh HeidelbergCement Group quarry as seen from Redding on Shasta View.
The draft EIR pulls few punches, but really doesn’t have to because chances are most of you probably won’t read it. Even so, I think the report is still inadequate.
1. No attempt is made to simulate the visual impact to Redding.
2. No alternative energy resource is explored except diesel electric generation. What about the potential for solar or wind power on the 1800+ acre site?
3. No contingency plan is explored for an extended drought. Water use is high.
4. Insufficient categorization of air pollution from other existing and expanding mines and manufacturers in the area compounding to the Project.
5. No contingency plan for possible bankruptcy of mine owner affecting reclamation completion. 100 years is a long time.
Resource exploitation corporations trade jobs for environmental impacts. Emphasis mine. We need the jobs and materials, but must judge carefully the balance. We are acting on behalf of our yet unborn descendants on a planet we do not own, but simply borrow. We have seen huge environmental impacts from mining operations in Shasta County, so have no excuse for glossing over another one.
You can read all 4 parts of the Moody Flats draft EIR report at the link. You can comment on the document until Dec. 18 at:
Written comments can be emailed to bwalker@co.shasta.ca.us or mailed to the attention of Bill Walker, AICP, senior planner, Shasta County Resource Management — Planning Division, 1855 Placer St. Suite 103, Redding, CA 96001.
