Submitting a Comment on the CEMEX DIER
On this page, you'll find excerpts from real public comments, shared with permission. Use the sample letter and comments below for inspiration on how to structure your own comments on specific topics. You'll also notice that comments come in a variety of formats.
Here are some general tips to consider when commenting:
- Include personal experience/observations (have you experienced impacts, such as noise, conflicts with truck traffic, etc… from the existing operations? Do you know of any articles, studies, photographs, or other evidence indicating that significant impacts could occur?)
- Point out any errors/omissions in the “project background”
- Include heartfelt concerns
Start Here
Begin typing your email or letter in the box below. When you click "Send Email," your message will open in your email, ready to be sent to David Randall. If you'd like, you can CC the Trust by including sweaver@riverparkway.org in your email.
Template Letter
[Date]
David Randall, Senior PlannerCounty of FresnoFresno, CA
Subject: Comments on CEMEX Rockfield Expansion Project DEIR
Dear David,I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the CEMEX Rockfield Expansion Project. Given the significant potential environmental and community impacts associated with this project, I have several concerns that I urge you to address prior to moving forward with approval.
1. Impacts on the San Joaquin River Watershed[Insert Your thoughts]
2. Air Quality and Dust Emissions[Insert Your thoughts]
3. Biological Resource Impacts[Insert Your thoughts]
4. Traffic and Noise Concerns[Insert Your thoughts]
5. Cumulative Environmental Effects[Insert Your thoughts]
Given these concerns, I urge the agency to require CEMEX to provide additional analysis, enhance mitigation measures, and explore less harmful alternatives. Public transparency and accountability in this review process are crucial to ensuring that the long-term health of the San Joaquin River watershed and surrounding communities is protected.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. I look forward to your response and further discussions on this important matter.
Sincerely,[Your Name]
Environmental Analysis Comments
4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
4.1.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
“Do they have a history of beneficial reuse of their former mining sites? What assurance do we have that CEMEX, a foreign corporation will have the resources and commitment to meet proposed restoration efforts at the end of the project?”
4.1.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
“CEMEX is currently encroaching on Environmental Reserve”
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
4.3 Air Quality
4.3.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
"- The DEIR says that project emissions may exceed cancer risk thresholds. DEIR pg. 4.3-63. The DEIR says that because mitigation measures would reduce emissions, the DEIR did not evaluate population-wide cancer burden. DEIR at pg. 4.3-64. CEQA requires that the analysis be performed before taking into account implementation of mitigation measures."
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.1.8 Special-Status Biological Resources
“Inadequate analysis of the potential effects of the project on the state listed as threatened Swainson’s hawk. With more than four dozen breeding season occurrence records of this species within 2 miles of the project site (eBird 2025) and numerous potential nest trees within 0.5 mile, the project could impact Swainson’s hawk. Construction activities such as blasting, excavating, trenching, or using other heavy equipment that disturbs or harms a Swainson’s hawk or substantially modifies its habitat could constitute a significant impact. To meet California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recommendations for mitigation and protection of this species, protocol surveys would need to be conducted within a 0.5-mile radius around all project activities. If active nesting is identified within the 0.5-mile radius, consultation with that agency would be required.”
4.4.1.9 Critical Habitat
“Mischaracterization of a regulated habitat. The Waste Wash Conveyance Ditch at the Plant Site likely qualifies as a stream, and diverting or obstructing its natural flow; altering its bed, channel, or bank; or depositing any material into this feature would be subject to provisions of California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.”
4.4.1.4 Wildlife
"The DEIR does not adequately analyze potential impacts of blasting on wildlife. The examples of habituation of wildlife to mining operations are for surface mining, not the deep rock mining proposed here."
4.4.1.8 Special-Status Biological Resources
"Inadequate search radius for records of special-status species. The industry standard for record searches, especially for EIR-level assessments, is a nine-quadrangle search radius, which includes the topographic quadrangle containing the project site and the eight surrounding quadrangles. Only four quadrangles were searched for this EIR. Therefore, some special-status species that could occur on or near the project site may not have been considered."
4.4.1.10 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans
“Restoration of the Chinook Salmon on the SJR. Would blasting and/or mining have any adverse effect on aquatic life? Index recites old studies completed in Alaska that are unlike the River. What impact would blast pressure and vibration waves have at this specific site? Perhaps test holes can be drilled with blasting done at various levels, with fish observed in the river.”
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.6 Energy
4.7 Geology and Soils
4.7.1.2 Soils, Geologic, and Seismic Hazards
o “Limited scope on the stability of the mining wall. o Limited discussion on the potential issues of disturbing the underlying soil/rock stability with blasting and digging. o Limited discussion on the impact of operations on existing groundwater levels and domestic wells.”
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
“I would like to raise an issue that affects Public Safety especially as it relates to the Quarry Site. This could be analyzed under the Hazard category as the Fresno County General Plan Implementation Program HS-E.B includes a statement that "The County shall, as part of the development review process, ensure that new development . . . does not create manmade safety hazards . . .".The issue pertains to the public safety hazard that the quarry will represent after the project is complete 100 years or so from now (and maybe before). With the stepped but vertical walls and a surface water elevation more than 400 below the trail elevation, the open quarry will not be suitable for fishing, swimming, boating, kayaking, canoeing, floating or anything else. But it will be ATTRACTIVE, especially to preteens and teenagers. There is not a fence that will keep them out.What will happen if one or more of the public falls into the pit? They won't fall all the way down - just 50 feet. That is a sure death.”
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10.1.5 Flood Hazards
“The flood hazard analysis is limited to the FEMA 100-year floodway and floodplain and states the "the floodplain does not encroach into the Quarry Site" as shown on Figure 4.10-1.The continued development of the berm between the river channel and the Quarry Site will constrain the river and will create a choke point especially at the north end of the Quarry Site where the easterly bank of the river is more vertical. According to the 100-Year Hydraulic Results found in the Hydraulic Analysis in Appendix G-1, the flood water surface elevation between Stations 20 and 21averages out to 313.27 feet. Without a constraining bank between Stations 20 and 21on the east side of the river additional water flow will likely push to the east across the north side of the Quarry Site.The Executive Summary includes the following caveat: The Bureau of Reclamation owns and manages the dam, and, during unforeseen events, may be required to release water into the San Joaquin River at rates that could exceed the river channel capacity (Fresno County 2018a).”
4.19.1.10 CSA 44C Wells and Quarry Site Interactions
“Impact on water tables for domestic residential wells.The possibility of dropping water tables on the extensive dig is a huge concern for residents.1) Cemex should install at every residential well a constant water level monitor. This should be monitored monthly by an independent contractor paid for by Cemex. 2) Cemex must provide a bond to protect every residence of this community. If the wells fail or have greatly reduced water production and the homes are no longer realistically habitable, protection for the homeowners must be in place before operations begin. Cemex must be liable and purchase the properties at high market value. There must be a penalty in place to be paid to the resident to cover costs of moving through no fault of their own.”
4.11 Land Use and Planning
4.12 Mineral Resources
4.13 Noise
4.13.2.3 Local
“To put it simply, in preparing the 2024 General Plan, the County retained noise Policies HS-G.2, HS-G.4 and HS-G.7 from the 2000 General Plan, the difference being that in 2000 those same policies were mitigation measures and in 2024 they were not. I believe the environmental assessment of noise for the 2024 General Plan may be fatally flawed given that the Final EIR made no attempt to explain how conditions in the County had miraculously improved since 2000 such that an increase in noise associated with an increase in road traffic was no longer “significant and unavoidable” but was, instead, “less than significant.” I also believe that the County’s General Plan is woefully inadequate in that the noise program that was to have been adopted by 2002 — which was to have included the defining of acceptable noise levels based on land use, the identification of noise monitoring methodologies as well as the delineation of enforcement and abatement procedures — does not yet exist. Given the County’s predilection to not taking directives in its General Plan seriously, for me, a future completion date of 2030 is meaningless. Besides, there’s no information in the noise sections of either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance regarding the potential adverse impact that blasting may have on the people recreating in and the wildlife inhabiting a parkway.”
4.13.1.4 Quarry Site Ambient Noise Environment
"-The threshold of significance used is inappropriate at this site. Noise along area roadways used by truck traffic already exceeds the General Plan normally acceptable standard of 60 dBA in residential areas. -The threshold used doesn’t make sense in an area where residents are already exposed to high levels of noise. Any increase of noise should be considered significant.See DEIR Table 4.13-6 at pg. 4.13-28 and Table 4.13-13 at starting at pg. 4.13-49."
4.13.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
"- The mitigation measures for noise impacts should be more specifically be required rather than a laundry list for the applicant to choose from. - The DEIR should have analyzed how much noise reduction each measure would result in and required particular combinations of measures to ensure noise is adequately reduced.- Because the project would increase nighttime noise for area residents, the DEIR should prohibit nighttime operations that increase noise. See pg. 4.13-60."
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
“1. Analysis and Thresholdsa. They solely addressed potential for structural damage from blasting vibrationb. They failed to select thresholds to address human perception – for both vibration and overpressure (with secondary effects, such as window rattling)c. A more conservative threshold for vibration would be appropriate for residences and recreational areas – between building damage and the threshold of human perception.d. Impact on people from secondary effects of overpressure should be addressed.e. Review precedent - other similar impact studies?2. Community Engagement and Relationsa. Consider blasting at the same time (on the hour) each day. Based on our experience, awareness of blasting has helped people to more easily tolerate blasting vib and air pressure that is perceptible.b. Consider notification of residents within 2000 feet at the time or blast (subscription for text notifications)3. Monitoringa. Third party review would be appropriate at early stages and/or when blasting within 600 feet of a residence or recreational area.b. We would recommend including monitors at the two closest residential properties, not just one. We would recommend measuring at two different setback distances. This could cover monitoring equipment failure and improve confidence in the measurement results.”
4.13.1.2 Sensitive Receptors in the Project Vicinity
"- Impacts to area residents have the potential to be significant- The DEIR doesn’t explain what residents would experience with blasting once or twice a day (which would be within the proposed threshold) - The analysis lists three potential impacts related to damage to surrounding residential/commercial structures and damage to nearby groundwater wells, disturbance of nearby residents, or destabilization of the San Joaquin River embankment. The DEIR analyses damage to structures and wells and destabilization of the river embankment but barely mentions disturbance to residents.- It appears that they did not evaluate the impacts of blasting to users of the adjacent park"
4.14 Population and Housing
4.15 Public Services
“Since 2000, CEMEX has been cited 667 times and fined $52.4 million for Environmental, safety & employment related offenses”
4.16 Recreation
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
“Table 4.16-1 Recreation Facilities Near the Project Sites – Some of the table sources are dated to 2021. Several properties listed (namely Ball Ranch and Ledger Island) were not formally open to the public then. These properties are now operated by the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust under a contract with the San Joaquin River Conservancy. There is more public use of the sites under current conditions that the project should analyze. o The description of the San Joaquin Fish Hatchery does not fully encompass the recreational facilities available, including FINS and the Parkway Trail from the hatchery to Lost Lake Park. It is more than “limited public access” today.o The descriptions of Ball Ranch and Ledger Island do not encompass the current operational status of public access availability 7 days a week. o The descriptions of the River Center and Peck Ranch state public access by permission, which is not entirely accurate. The properties have regular operating hours and is open to the public daily.”
4.17 Transportation
4.17.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
“Cemex states that they will not mitigate the traffic congestion. That is ludicrous, This very wealthy company needs to mitigate the traffic congestion on Willow to Friant Road.There is precedent in this county for this requirement. Table Mountain helped finance turning Friant Road into a four lane highway. Vulcan at the Austin quarry on road 145 and 41 has been required to make modifications on Road 145. They are required to finance Highway 41to a four lane road when the county is ready to begin construction.1) At the Friant Willow junction there should be two left lanes made for turning onto Willow from Friant. The trucks should only be allowed to use one lane. 2) A requirement that the entire Willow Road between Friant and Copper be expanded to 4 lanes. 3) A requirement that the north direction on Willow be expanded to two lanes from International to Copper. 4) There is a concern with increased heavy truck traffic effecting the traffic safety near the schools on International and Willow.If Cemex cannot afford this they have no business mining on the river. What happens if there is a catastrophe at the mining site? Will they say we don’t have money to repair?”
Mitigation Measure 4.17-1g Friant Road and North Fork Road Intersection Improvements
"The project should contribute its fair share over the 15 years preceding the intersection improvements.What is the calculation formula to establish required contributions?Who runs the calculation?When is the calculation run?What percentage share does the project carry?Who determines what is an equitable share. How is it spread?When are the contributions made? When do they start?Are the contributions in advance? In arrears?Are they made annually? Monthly?Who monitors when each of these calculations are run?Who monitors when each of these contributions are made?What transparency is there on this process until the intersection improvements are complete?"
Mitigation measure 4.17-1a: Equitable Share Contribution – Friant Road and Willow Avenue Traffic Signal.
"This Mitigation is not expected to be warranted until the project is producing 3.0 MT/year – projected to be 10 years from approval or possibly more.o The project should contribute its fair share over the 10 years preceding the signalization.What is the calculation?Who runs the calculation?When is the calculation run?What percentage share does the project carry?Who determines what is an equitable share. How is it spread?When are the contributions made? When do they start?Are the contributions in advance? In arrears?Are they made annually? Monthly?Who monitors when each of these calculations are run?Who monitors when each of these contributions are made?What transparency is there on this process until the signalization is complete?"
Mitigation Measure 4.17-1p Friant Road and Plant Site Access Intersection Improvements
"(This mitigation measure is essentially identical to MM 4.17-1i, as the year 2040 may occur before 15 years have passed since project approval.)o The project should contribute its 100% share over the 15 years preceding the intersection improvements.o Why is this an Equitable Share Improvement? Without the Plant Site operation there would not be a requirement for intersection improvements. The project should pay for 100% of the required improvements and signalization.o Who will perform the annual traffic warrant analyses? Who will review and verify the results of the analyses? Who will monitor the County Annual Mine Inspections for annual production?When is the contribution to be made? When do they start?Are the contributions in advance? In arrears?Are they made annually? Monthly?Who monitors when each of these warrant calculations are run?Who monitors when each of these contributions are made?What transparency is there on this process until the intersection improvements are complete?"