SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was obtained on the site. Once the field data was obtained, the management plan could be evaluated in the context of the known data. This was done in the revised biological study. C 140: The bridge crossing will require a streambed alteration permit. The developer should consult with CDFG regarding the necessity to obtain permits for excavation of Tracy Lakes and Jahant Slough. C141: This impact is based on the analysis provided in the biological and archaeological analyses of the development proposal. The purpose of the EIR is to identify impacts on the environment. From a land use perspective, this is considered an impact. C 142: Even though the property has not been farmed in row crops, nonetheless it is considered agricultural land, and as such, is a resource as identified in CEQA. C 143: Although the DEIR does not give a detailed explanation of the maintenance requirements that the truck traffic would necessitate, page 4.2-19,first paragraph,states that preliminary calculations suggest the haul route would probably need resurfacing. The specific improvements required by the County would presumably maintain at least existing surface conditions. C 144: Refer to response C244. C145: The commenter is mistaken or has misinterpreted the DEIR. The discussion on pages 4.6-12 through 4.6-14 makes it very clear that the normal water rights regulatory procedures of the State Water resources Control Board do not cover diversions under riparian rights or groundwater pumping. These uses of water are guided by case law, and if disputes arise they are settled by the courts, not by the administrative process. The commenter appears to be arguing that impacts of water use are immune from consideration under CEQA. The EIR authors disagree. Moreover, the fact that riparian rights and groundwater withdrawals are not subject to regulation under State Law (contrary to the claim of the commenter) makes it even more critical that potential impacts be identified and addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR does not claim that restriction of water usage to on-site groundwater replenishment is a statement of water rights. The DEIR proposes that this be adopted as a mitigation measure to limit groundwater overdraft effects from the project, since there is otherwise no regulatory mechanism for limiting groundwater pumping effects. This mitigation measure is specific to this development project and has no bearing on the feasibility of irrigated agriculture in California. C 146: The DEIR suggests that reduction in the irrigated area be considered as part of an overall water conservation strategy for the project; it does not require it. The fact that the existing vineyard is held as a life estate by the former owner does not exclude it from consideration in the DEIR; it is identified by the applicant as part of the project and part of the required water supply. C 147: Commenter should refer to documentation in the revised biological study(Volume II,Section 4.7) and CDFG Guidelines in Appendix F of the EIR. Also refer to comments from CDFG in Chapter VI. C 148: This mitigation has been eliminated. Refer to revised biological study, Volume II, Section 4.7. C 149: Refer to response C121. I1I-176