SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Woods and north of South Tracy Lake. The impact on archaeological sites is dependent on any redesigned placement of the golf course and homesites, and their relationship to archaeological sites. In addition,biological Mitigation Measure 4.7-1(c)calls for the repositioning of the stable to the above northern area. Again, the impact on archaeological sites is dependent on the new placement and its relationship to the archaeological sites. This conflict is discussed in Sections 4.7 and 6.5 of Volume II. D22- D23: These issues have also been expressed by CDFG and addressed accordingly. Refer to CDFG comments and responses. D24- D25: To undertake the type of study suggested by the commenter would take approximately five to eight years. In keeping with state planning guidelines to process development proposals, this is not possible. D26: Comments noted. D27: Comment acknowledged. D28: The capacity of the lake was judged by the fact that the water came up to the edge of the oak trees along what appeared to be the upper shoreline. It was the opinion of the consulting biologist that this was a normal "filling." D29: Depending upon the extent of rainfall, a sudden release from Comanche could cause such an overflow again. However, these comments were made to give a history as to how the Beaver Pond probably got stocked and were taken straight from the Brovelli interview furnished by the applicant. D30: Comment noted. D31: The previous agricultural activities were indeed at direct odds with this relatively old act which was essentially forgotten during the 1950s and 1960s. It is experiencing a resurgence as careful readings of this act reveal that it can apply to robins and bluebirds, as well as geese and swans. D32: A careful review of the project plan shows this access road extendinght rough the woods, albeit at the eastern end. Contrary to the commenter's statement, it does not skirt the woods. This crossing is in direct conflict with the nest disturbance prevention requirements of the Swainson' hawk mitigation guidelines and is, therefore, opposed by the EIR biologist and the CDFG. D33: These points must now be addressed by CDFG. The EIR has reported Swainson's hawk presence and nesting and suggested mitigation measures. The CDFG has indicated in their comments that the EIR mitigation measures have not gone far enough to provide a "net gain" to the species. The agency will make the determination of what is and is not appropriate. D34: As the CDFG mitigation guidelines clearly state, nesting Swainson's hawks and human activity do not mix. VI-157