SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 don't know, for certain, is there? How can the developer avoid E10 sensitive areas when those areas are in dispute and still being discovered? How can you determine what kinds of mitigation are I needed when we do not know what the resources are? If Mr. Johnson found this much in a short time of study what would happen if he spent years? How do you go about establishing mitigation when you are not fully sure what the full assessment of the value of the area is? Mr. Johnson eluded to the fact that there are other sites ounty, she would like ' to know where comparable to this in our c these sites are and if they are comparable when looked at in combination with the resources at Buckeye. Kathy Hieb, 1718 A. Pine St. , Lodi 95242, representing Sierra Club, Delta Sierra Group. Concerns are with the biological section. Ell Sandhill Crane has been given very little concern in the new, revised DEIR. The primary concern is the one significant affect on i wildlife habitat caused by the destruction of the closed canopy E12 forest. Removing trees would increase predators of nesting birds. i The DEIR does not address another kind of habitat loss which has cc-occurred with the removal of the trees and that is the loss of E13 undergrowth that is adjacent to the proposed fairways. If the I fairways are in place going into the closed canopy forest, more trees will probably be removed. Section 4 . 16-3 (last paragraph) indicates that there will be no net loss of wetlands on the project E14 site. There is nothing in the DEIR with regard to roll-over pumping from North Tracy Lake and South Tracy Lake which would indicate dumping would result in no net loss of wetland habitat, especially shallow water habitat. In theory this could work, but it depends on the type of water years we have. One proposal, as far as pumping into South Tracy Lakes to create more consistent I wetlands is groundwater pumping. There was nothing which addressed E15 the depletion of the ground water resources, which is a significant impact under CEQA. Waldo Holt, 3900 River Drive, Stockton, representing the Audubon Society. This EIR attempts to suggest alternatives and recommend mitigations measures but fails miserably in disclosing the impacts. There are at least three listed species associated with this project: the Swainson Hawk, the Greater Sandhill Crane, and the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. No thorough survey for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle was done. No real survey for Swainson E16 Hawk was done, and no analysis of which areas are most sensitive ` was done. There is no evaluation of impacts to the Greater I Sandhill Crane. Sensitive areas were not mapped out. The project i areas should be mapped with the sensitive areas overlain enabling EIt the sensitive areas to be analyzed. This has not been done in this EIR. The biological consequences of opening up the closed canopy Ei8 forest are not considered. The opening up of those areas for Brown II Headed Cowbird intrusion are not considered at all. This EIR E19 relies mainly on anecdotal information. It philosophizes about what the actual impacts may be and lacks specificity. Gary Guadagnolo, 925 N. Yosemite, Stockton 95203 . It is important I L, that the County keep an eye on what is happening at Buckeye Ranch E20 I VII 3