SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

under claim of riparian right will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. There is no administrative process beyond CEQA to address impacts. C187: The commenter is mistaken. The groundwater pumping limitation recommended in Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(b) is not intended as a statement of groundwater rights. Rather, it is recommended as a mitigation measure against groundwater overdraft because there otherwise are no limitations on groundwater pumping. There is no state law which limits groundwater withdrawal by each landowner to their share of the "safe yield." Safe yield is a concept often used in areawide groundwater management planning and groundwater basin adjudications;but it is not a part of any state law as suggested by the commenter. See also response C173. The DEIR makes no comparison or value judgments relative to the project's domestic and wildlife-habitat water uses vs. agricultural water use. The proposed project is subject to CEQA review on its own merits; irrigated agriculture is not subject to CEQA review. C 188: Even though the current Tracy Lakes would undergo extensive excavation, the excavated area would be full of water during the time of flooding. A filled lake does not provide flood storage. C189: Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 does not state that an owner cannot protect their property from flooding; but the impacts on other properties of any flood control measure must be taken into account. The mitigation measures recommend that the owner not protect the property by constructing levees which would displace floodwaters into adjacent properties,thereby increasing flood elevations locally. The owner may protect property by other means, including proper building design and site planning. C 190: Comment noted. The calculations are interesting but irrelevant to the EIR. Nitrate impacts on groundwater quality are not indicated in the EIR to be a significant impact;nor was a cattle ranch posed or evaluated as a project alternative. C 191: Refer to Figure 4.7-1 in the revised biological study, Volume II, Section 4.7. C 192: Information noted. The point made in the text and in the photograph is to show the size and age of some of the trees that have been removed on the property. The fact that the stumps would be used for fish habitat in the lakes does not offset the loss of the large trees as potential nesting habitat for the several raptor species on the site. This information was also not disclosed during the course of preparing the DEIR. C 193: This map has been corrected as shown in the revised biological study, Volume II, Section 4.7. C 194: The analysis is based upon the road alignment as shown in the applicant's plans. If this location is not correct, then the applicant should provide a revised plan so that an accurate analysis can be made. C195: Refer to revised biological study in Volume II, Section 4.7 regarding vernal pools. C 196: This issue is now moot, since the wetlands delineation map is no long valid and a new seasonal wetlands delineation will need to be completed. III-180