9-Oct-98
Tulare Irrigation District
PO Box 1920
Tulare CA 93275
RE: MAIN INTAKE CANAL LINING PROJECT
The Sierra Club, Mineral King Group, submits these comments on the draft environmental impact report.
The EIR did not discuss the ecological resources of valley oaks being impacted. These were discussed only as an aesthetic resource. These trees along the canal are valley oak woodlands, which constitute a riparian habitat whose ecological values must be addressed. In particular, the tree location map show significant stands of trees clustered around the St. John's River and Kaweah River intersects. These river corridors, especially the St. John's, are known to have important riparian habitat. Riparian habitat is an extremely valuable and increasingly limited resource. Roughly 95% of the riparian habitat in California have been eliminated. The California Department of Fish and Game has given high priority to maintaining and improving the remaining riparian habitat. The proposed project could have a significant and direct impact on the ecological resources of valley oak riparian woodland and other riparian habitat. These impacts must be discussed in the EIR.
The EIR did not discuss the ecological resources of the natural flow of waters in the basin. The EIR state that many of the valley oaks along the canal are greater than 100 years old, predating the existence of TID. This indicates that the historical natural flow of water is an important ecological resource for the valley oak riparian woodland. The proposed project may have a significant impact due to changes in the natural flow of waters and must be discussed in the EIR.
The EIR did not discuss indirect impacts to riparian habitat. Riparian habitat along the St. John's River and Kaweah River may be indirectly affected due to the project. The Kaweah Oaks Preserve is in close proximity to the canal, and it may be indirectly impacted. CEQA require that indirect impacts must also be analyzed.
The EIR did not perform a biological survey for potential kit fox habitat. It is aberrant to the intent of the CEQA process to treat the biological assessment as a mitigation measure, as discussed in this EIR. The biological study must be included in the draft EIR, open to public review.
The EIR must determine mitigation measures for loss of SJ kit fox habitat. Adjacent landowners have stated that evidence of SJ kit fox dens have been found on their property. Kit fox habitat includes foraging areas and dispersal corridors. The canal would be a foraging area due to the many ground squirrels found, which is a food source for SJ kit fox. The canal would serve as a good dispersal corridor. Paving the ground squirrels will reduce the food source and corridor, thereby reducing the habitat. Mitigation and compensation measures must be revealed in the draft EIR.
The EIR failed to discuss the potential impacts due to the construction of new recharge basins. CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15126 states that all phases of a project must be revealed. The recharge basins are part of the project and impacts must be analyzed in the draft EIR. It is erroneous to refer this to a mitigation measure, as discussed in this EIR.
The mitigation plan for valley oaks is unclear, confusing, and inadequate.
Mitigation measures must be specific and feasible actions.
The mitigation statement that "All trees that cannot be avoided would be replaced at the following ratio ." is wishful thinking by using the words "would be". This does not designate a specific action.
The mitigation statement that "Mitigation sites should be prioritized to allow for expansion or continuity of habitat along the waterways ." is unclear. Use of the word "should" indicate these measures are advisory only, rather than specific actions.
The mitigation for replacing oaks through onsite plantings is unclear. It does not specify how or where these trees will be planted onsite. It does not state when it will occur, or who will assure survival. It is not specific and the feasibility of this measure is questionable.
The mitigation for replacing oaks through offsite plantings is unclear. It does not specify how or where these trees will be planted offsite. It does not state when it will occur, or who will assure survival. It does not list potential sites and the likelihood of the site. It is not specific and the feasibility of this measure is questionable.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Moy