SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Kerry Sullivan April 8, 1992 Page 22 Page 6 - 1 Traffic/Circulation C234 No changes in existing transportation conditions would occur. The site would remain as is, thus no change in vehicle trips from existing conditions. A haul route would not be necessary. Not true. Farm vehicles associated with the future vineyards would use the site. In addition, traffic associated with the excavation of the lakes would be necessary to move the material from somewhere else, probably more distant, for the flood control and other fill projects which must take place, for instance,to protect Thornton. Page 6 - 1 Geology C235 This alternative would not generate any of the wastewater disposal or soil erosion impacts identifiedfor the proposed project. LThis alternative is worse than the project due to the nitrate loading from up to 320 cows. 7 Pape 6 - 2 Air Ouality C236 This alternative would avoid the construction and operational impacts of the project. The alternative would create dust from vineyard construction and the cattle would graze the property into a dustbowl. Page 6 - 2 Water Resources This alternative assumes that the site will continue to be used for agricultural purposes and �C237 Tracy Lakes would remain unimproved. No additional demand on the local aquifer or diversions of Mokelumne River streamflow will occur. The flood elevations and flow dynamics will remain the same. No increase in nitrate loading got groundwater will occur, and there will be no major site disturbance that would generate soil erosion problems. The Environmental Impact Report author has misstated the impacts the construction of vineyards will i necessitate including additional groundwater pumping and soil movement. Cattle grazing will significantly increase nitrate loading. Page 6 - 2 Biological Resources Present conditions would continue with the one major exception that as a result of preliminary C238 development activities, 15 acres of prime mature foothill riparian woodland, associated brush i understory and ecotone habitat which includes potential Swainson's hawk nesting habitat, have either been destroyed or disturbed. Leveling of the land to convert grazing land to agricultural production would remove valuable foraging habitat and disturb nesting sites for the Swainson's Hawk, a state-listed endangered species. It is unlikely the Department of Fish and Game would permit complete conversion of this site unless adequate mitigation for the loss of habitat is provided. The statement „disturb nesting sites” for the Swainson's hawk is conjecture, no one has located any nests on the property. The removal of the trees was a legally permitted activity. 111-137