SFPUC 2001 Alameda Watershed Management Plan

XII. SUMMARY OF COMMMENTS AND RESPONSESB. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSESWe have reviewed this document and believe that it is a thorough discussion for the issues, andoverall, is adequate for our use. The document serves as a Program EIR and may also serve asthe environmental review for the individual management actions. The following questions andcomments are offered to assist the SFPUC in preparing a complete and accurate document thatwill serve the needs of San Francisco and Alameda County, and to clarify Alameda County’sposition in certain regards.” (Alameda County Community Development Agency)Comment A-6: “The EIR indicates that detailed analysis will be required later for some of themanagement actions. This seems appropriate because the SFWD EIR is at a Program level ofdetail and the specifics of many actions are not yet known. With this in mind, Alameda Countybelieves that Table II-1 in the DEIR is helpful as a guide, but should not be considereddeterminative. Consistent with Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Alameda Countywill undertake further environmental review when considering review and approval ofimplementation actions within its jurisdiction. Some future actions may already be adequatelycovered, and some may not be, depending on the circumstances at the time and the details of theprojects.” (Alameda County Community Development Agency)Response: These comments are noted and are consistent with the EIR’s approach for use of theProgram EIR for coverage of certain actions and to guide future program level analysis of otheractions.Comment A-7: “The DEIR does not address impacts associated with operation and maintenanceactivities or impacts associated with new construction. Presumably operation and maintenanceactivities are part of the management of the watershed and impacts associated with thoseactivities should be included in the DEIR. New construction is described on a programmaticlevel but no mitigation for loss of habitat is discussed. As described above, basic mitigationrequirements should be included in the DEIR.” (California Department of Fish and Game)Comment A-8: “On B-13 in regard to the reclamation of mining pits as water storage reservoirs,there’s an indication reclamation of mine pits as water storage reservoirs could have effects onnearby land users.For example, localized climate changes could occur due to the presence of relatively large bodiesof the waters. At this time such impacts cannot be assessed because of future land uses.However, future environmental review would be required at the time construction of an operatingsystem for the resources was proposed to determine potential impacts and mitigation measures.And my question in regards to that is have any studies been done of the effects of the water pitsalready in existence in the Livermore, Pleasanton area often referred to as the “Chain of Lakes”plotted to the contribution, could this review be referred to on said page and be conducted wherelakes exist and not only in Livermore and Pleasanton, but also Fremont.” (Jessie M. Campbell –Pleasanton Public Meeting)NOP 96.223E: Alameda Watershed Management Plan C&R.7 ESA / 930385