SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

leechfield would be extremely difficult at best, given that D12 no one knows for sure the sites of additional burial or habitation spots. The impossibility of effectively monitoring the application of pesticides and herbicides by the resident community is another of the "unmitigatible mitigations" . The mitigation is advisory, but who will enforce it? The same with the impact of domestic pets and their considerable negative effect on the native wildlife. Unless the developer is willing to provide a local "pet police" , I doubt that there can be much guarantee that the residents will D13 always confine their animals indoorsVon leashes. It wouldn' t take much disturbance on the part of the domestics to successfully drive some of the more delicate species from the area. The language of the proposed mitigation is especially weak and inadequate when it seeks to "encourage restriction of pets, particularly cats, to the house area. " It needs to require not merely "encourage" . Two other areas of confusion and inadequate mitigation are the issues of "public trust" and "water diversion and pumping" . With a present groundwater overdraft of 270, 000 acre feet per year, and a river that frequently "runs-to- ground" below Woodbridge Dam, likelihood of using either of these two beleagured sources is slim. The Mokelumne River is currently the source of public hearings at the State Water Resources Control Board because biologists and scientists are concerned with the current low flows down the river, D14 declaring it "aquatically dead" and presently unable to support native fisheries. Yet page 4. 6-12 of the D. E. I . R. says that "diversion, if obtained entirely from the Mokelumne River, could represent 10 to 15 percent of the summer streamflow. " Both of these sources, the underground aquifer and the River, are already depleted beyond their present capacity to replenish themselves as is. The idea of removing even more water from these depleted systems is aS questionable as the idea of filling the lakes in the first place. In addition, State Lands Commission confirms in their April 6, 1992 letter that portions of Tracy Lakes and Jahant Slough are indeed sovereign lands and subject to public trust D15 claims. There is some discussion that not only the water bodies, but the whole rarity of the project site qualify it as worthy of public trust definition. These issues are not resolved in the current D. E. I . R. or the supplements. Of side interest is the fact that while perhaps mitigatible, it is of questionable wisdom to plan housing on D16; the 100 year flood plain, deliberately exposing future residents to the inconvenience and possible hazard of those conditions. page four VI-50