Response to Comment 1-1

Robin Cort

Informations

• Publié par: Movong
• Nombre de lectures: 34
• Langue: English

Extrait

I

N

C

R

E

M

E

N

T

A

L

R

E

C

Y

C

L

E

D

W

A

T

E

R

P

R

O

G

R

A

M

F

I

N

A

L

E

I

R

R

E

S

P

O

N

S

E

S

T

O

C

O

M

M

E

N

T

S

RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS

This section contains summaries of the written comments received by the City during the

comment period and the responses to these comments. It also contains summaries of the oral

comments received at the public hearing on June 19, 2003, and the responses to these

comments.

Responses to Specific Comments are individually numbered in sequence corresponding to

the numbering assigned to comments within each Comment Letter or Public Hearing

Comment. A list of commentors is in Chapter 1.

When the response to comment necessitates a change to the text in the Draft EIR, text that

has been added to the Draft EIR is indicated in underline font, while text that has been

deleted is indicated with strikethrough font. Changes to text within a table have been lightly-

shaded to highlight the edits.

Textual edits resulting from response to comments are the Volume 3, Replacement Pages.

I

N

C

R

E

M

E

N

T

A

L

R

E

C

Y

C

L

E

D

W

A

T

E

R

P

R

O

G

R

A

M

F

I

N

A

L

E

I

R

R

E

S

P

O

N

S

E

T

O

C

O

M

M

E

N

T

S

C

OMMENT

L

ETTER

100, E

D

U

EBER

, M

ANAGER

, G

ULF OF THE

F

ARALLONES

N

ATIONAL

M

ARINE

S

ANCTUARY

–

U.S.

D

EPARTMENT

OF

C

OMMERCE

,

N

ATIONAL

O

CEANIC

AND

A

TMOSPHERIC

A

DMINISTRATION

Response to Comment 100-1

Comment Summary:

The comment identifies the commenting agency.

It also provides

information on the status of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary pursuant

to Federal regulations and identifies the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of

1972 as being applicable to the Sanctuary.

The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and therefore, no further

response is necessary.

Response to Comment 100-2

Comment Summary:

The comment states that Santa Rosa’s wastewater plan includes

augmentation of water flows (such as runoff, seepage or discharge) for Estero Americano

and Estero de San Antonio. The comment identifies these waters as being part of the Gulf of

the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve of the

United Nations, and states that they are internationally recognized; are a unique ecosystem

in California; and that Congress has conferred specific protections.

None of the Alternatives of the IRWP includes augmentation of water flows or other actions

within the watershed of the Estero Americano or the Estero de San Antonio. The Sanctuary

is recognized as a unique and valuable coastal ecosystem, but is not mentioned in the IRWP

Draft EIR, because the IRWP will have no impact on the Sanctuary.

In past wastewater planning efforts, the City of Santa Rosa has considered alternatives which

included discharge into the Esteros (Santa Rosa Long-Term Wastewater System EIR/EIS

1991) or potential seepage from dams or irrigation within the watershed of the Esteros (Santa

Rosa Subregional Long-Term Wastewater Project EIR/EIS 1997); however, those projects

are not included in this Program.

Response to Comment 100-3

Comment Summary: The comment states that because the Long-Term EIR was found to be in

noncompliance with several CEQA requirements, the City could not select a West County

irrigation project for implementation without a new EIR and NEPA document.

Two CEQA lawsuits challenging the Santa Rosa Subregional Long-Term Wastewater Project

EIR/EIS (Long-Term EIR) (1997) were heard in court and both were dismissed by the

plaintiffs through settlement agreements. The City has not rescinded its certification of the

Long-Term EIR. The Long-Term EIR is thus a valid document that can be used to select and

approve projects.

OCTOBER 20, 2003

PARSONS

PAGE 100-1

I

N

C

R

E

M

E

N

T

A

L

R

E

C

Y

C

L

E

D

W

A

T

E

R

P

R

O

G

R

A

M

F

I

N

A

L

E

I

R

R

E

S

P

O

N

S

E

T

O

C

O

M

M

E

N

T

S

OCTOBER 20, 2003

PARSONS

PAGE 100-2

A tolling agreement was signed in 1998, allowing certain parties to file suit against the Long-

Term EIR if a West County alternative were ever selected for implementation. The IRWP

EIR is not intended to rule out the use of lands already analyzed in the Long-Term EIR. The

City could proceed with irrigation on such other lands at its discretion, subject to any

requirement under CEQA to perform supplemental environmental review.

There were no legal challenges to the NEPA documentation for the Long-Term project, and

therefore the Long-Term EIS is also a valid document that can be used to select and approve

projects.

Response to Comment 100-4

Comment Summary: The comment provides information for further contact and expresses a

willingness to review and assist the City further.

The City appreciates the offer of assistance.