SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

equipment, to avoid further damage resulting from compaction. The text in the supplemental study has been changed accordingly (see page 37). D13: The EIR biological consultant concurs with these statements. D 14: The commenter points out that water diversions from Mokelumne River or pumping from groundwater to meet the project water demands would be detrimental to these two water sources, which are already overtaxed. The commenter criticizes the EIR of being confusing and providing inadequate mitigation measures in this regard. The EIR authors agree with the commenter that obtaining makeup water from either the Mokelumne River or from groundwater is a significant or potentially significant impact of the project (see Impact 4.6-3 on page 4.6-17). Accordingly the EIR identifies several mitigation measures to address these impacts (see page 4.6-18. The commenter does not indicate what is lacking in the mitigation measures. Based on the last sentence of the comment, it appear that the commenter's criticism is mainly that the EIR does not state that the filling of the lakes and overall water diversion plan is a "questionable idea." D 15: The determination of public trust must be resolved between the State Lands Commission and the applicant. D 16: Comment acknowledged. The commenter questions the wisdom of locating houses in the 100- year floodplain. The EIR properly identifies the flooding hazards of the site and the standard requirement to ensure that the finished floor elevations of all buildings are at least one foot above the estimated 100-year flood elevation. The EIR authors do not believe that the wisdom of national flood hazard guidelines, which dictate local floodzone requirements, are an issue to be evaluated in this EIR. D 17: The cumulative impact section has been revised to more accurately reflect cumulative conditions in northern San Joaquin County. The neighbor and property owner have entered into a grazing agreement to run cattle. There is far less prime waterfowl and Swainson's hawk foraging land than farmland in the Central Valley, and the intent of the suggested mitigation measures is to preserve the former. Also refer to response D14 above regarding the effects on the Mokelumne River. D 18: Comment does not respond to the DEIR. D 19: The consulting archaeologist believes that the areas identified for ground disturbance have been adequately examined for the identification of cultural resources, and further extensive surveys in these areas are not necessary. Only one site exists which is known to contain human remains, and this site is not expected to be impacted by the proposed development. The rest of the sites have the potential to contain human remains, but these sites will either be avoided or protected as stated in the Supplemental Report. Refer to response D4. D20- D21: Comment acknowledged. Most mitigation measures for biological impacts should not affect archaeological site locations. However, two mitigation measures for biological impacts could have an unknown impact on archaeological site locations. Biological mitigation measure for Swainson's Hawk habitat 4.7-1(a)proposes redesigning the development so that the golf course and all 26 homesites are positioned in the northern area of the project, away from Brovelli VI-156 �.