ARCHIVED REPORTS_1993_1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the County of San Joaquin Public Health Services (Environmental Health Division). A 20 According to the applicants, approximately 25 percent of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. A 21 A minimum of at least one ground water monitoring well must be installed downgradient of the site in order to provide a means to recognize and identify contaminants migrating from the facility. The highly permeable alluvial fan soils in the project area may allow the rapid migration of any contaminants escaping the project containment system. A groundwater monitoring well upgradient of the site would allow a rapid identification of those contaminants originating from <off the site. More detailed information regarding the water monitoring plan is beyond the scope of this EIR. The applicant will be required to prepare the monitoring plan, which will contain the following information: number of wells, location of ground water monitoring wells relative to downgradient ground water flow, how the wells will be used, depth of well casings to prevent potential well contamination, provisions for monitoring vadose zone for potential leachate saturation, designated constituents to be tested, and frequency of testing. Recyclable materials will be baled and stored in bunkers or in 20 -yard containers. The specific locations will be shown in the RSi submitted for permitting. The duration of storage will be largely determined by 1 the market for recyclable commodities. Refer to Response B 17. A 23 Chapter 5.0 includes a discussion of cumulative impacts (Section 54). The only cumulative impact noted is the impact to the Swainson's hawk. The comment notes that it is important that the Final EIR address all of the cumulative impacts. This is correct, and the Final EIR does address this impact, since it is the only cumulative impact identified; it is discussed in Chapter 5.0. The possible cumulative impacts noted in the comment •noise, dust, emissions,etc." were found either not to be significant on a project level or mitigable with the mitigation measures suggested in the EBR. On a cumulative level, all, except for the impact to the Swainson's hawk, were found to have a slight, incremental, and less than significant impact. Thus, they were not required by the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130(a)) to be discussed. A 24 The information has been noted. The text has been revised A 25 I The information has been noted. The text has been revised. - B1 The information has been acknowledged. No further response is required. ER -93.1 -13- (11-23-93) d