Response to Comment 1-1

Response to Comment 1-1

-

Documents
3 pages
Lire
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

Description

INCREMENTAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM FINAL EIR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 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. INCREMENTAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM FINAL EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS COMMENT LETTER 100, ED UEBER, MANAGER, GULF OF THE FARALLONES NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY – U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 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 ...

Sujets

Informations

Publié par
Nombre de lectures 34
Langue English
Signaler un problème
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.